Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1836 (RAJ)

Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of ors.

2002-11-14

ARUN MADAN

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of his order of termination dt.23.12.1993 (Ann.17) issued by the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Kathumar, Distt. Alwar (respondent No.3) on the ground of his B.Ed. Degree having been found forged and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that pursuant to an Advertisement No.1(88), published by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad Alwar, he was selected and appointed as Teacher Gr.IH and was posted at Primary School Kutti Man Sadas vide order dt. 12.12.1988 by the Vikas Adhikari respondent No.3 where he joined his duties on 13.12.88. After having successfully completed the probationary period of two years, he was confirmed on the post of Teacher Gr.III vide order dt.27.12.90 passed by the Vikas Adhikan, PS Kathumar. 3. As per the averment made in the petition, the petitioner after passing his MA Previous (Political Science) in the year 1985 as a Private Student from the University of Rajasthan and under a bona fide belief that he could do his B.Ed. Degree passed the course of study simultaneously from Avadh University Faizabad (UP). 4. The petitioner has further stated in the petition that he was a confirmed Teacher Gr.III after his successful completion of Probationary period of two years in service. However, there were many complaints of the forged degrees in the State with regard to B.Ed. degrees awarded by many Universities and the B.Ed. Degree awarded to the petitioner by the Avadh University (Faizabad) was also included to be adjudged as the same also had been awarded by Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket Mahavidhyalaya, Faizabad which had by then known as issuing the forged degrees and therefore, the Vikas Adhikari had asked vide letter No.138 dt.22/4/92 the petitioner to deposit his said degree and mark sheet in original for verification of their genuineness and the petitioner had deposited the same. 5. Thereafter, the Vikas Adhikari respondent No.3 enquired about the genuineness of the B.Ed. Degree from the Avadh University, Faizabad and Kanta Prasad Sunder Saket Mahavidhyalaya, Faizabad. In reply thereto, the Avadh University vide its letter dt. 6.8.1992 (Ann.R/1) informed respondent No.3 indicating the name of four persons who obtained the B.Ed. Degree from the said University while, the Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket Mahavidhyalaya, Faizabad informed respondent No.3 vide its letter dt.16.9.92 (Ann.R/2) holding the B.Ed. In reply thereto, the Avadh University vide its letter dt. 6.8.1992 (Ann.R/1) informed respondent No.3 indicating the name of four persons who obtained the B.Ed. Degree from the said University while, the Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket Mahavidhyalaya, Faizabad informed respondent No.3 vide its letter dt.16.9.92 (Ann.R/2) holding the B.Ed. Degree of the petitioner as forged one. 6. On the basis of the communication dt.16.9.92 (Ann.R/2) received from the Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket Mahavidhyalaya, Faizabad, the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar, respondent No.2 had initiated a Departmental Enquiry purported to be under Rule 7 of the Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1961 for short 'the Rules of 1961' vide Memo No.4365-66 dt. 24.6.93 (Annexure-9) alleging the charges incorporated in the charge sheet to which the petitioner filed reply dt. 12.7.1993(Annexure-10). 7. Meanwhile, the Vikas Adhikar had lodged FIR bearing to No.703/93 for offences under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 & under Section 120-B IPC with PS Kotwali Alwar. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and he was released on bail by the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar and the main accused of the crime namely; Om Prakash was also arrested on 1.9.1993 and the petitioner was summoned in the aforesaid case as a witness to appear before the Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Alwar. 8. Thereafter, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti called the explanation from the petitioner vide letter dt. 23.11.93. The petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation on 1.12.1993. On receiving the same, the petitioner was served with a questionnaire on the spot on 1.12.1993 by the Panchayat Samiti pointing out the specific questions formulated on the aforesaid basis, the petitioner had submitted the reply of the same. 9. Meanwhile, against his order of suspension, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing SBCWP No.4082/93 and the learned Sine Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition by observing, as under: "In the charge issued it has been mentioned that on enquiry from the said institution they have informed vide their letter dated 7.11.1992 that the petitioner was never a student of B.Ed. lasses of that institution. It appears that in order to avoid the enquiry and get out of the clutches of the punishment which could be awarded to the Petitioner he has approached directly to this Court. lasses of that institution. It appears that in order to avoid the enquiry and get out of the clutches of the punishment which could be awarded to the Petitioner he has approached directly to this Court. If a person has been given the appointment on the basis of a forge certificate then this Court under Article 226 cannot interfere and invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in such a case where a person has acted on a fraud. If, the certificate is not a forge one then the petitioner should not have any fear and reply of the charge sheet should have been given. The respondent in such a case as have been done in other cases may file an FIR. If the degree is not a forge one as alleged in this case then the proper course for the petitioner is to satisfy the respondents in the enquiry proceedings." 10. Thereafter, vide order dt.23.12.1993 (Ann.17), the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents. 11. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of this writ petition on 25.4.1994. 12. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that without any evidence or further enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 as well as sub-Rule (7) of Rule 7 of the Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1961 for short 'the Rules of 1961', the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti vide his order dt.3.12.93 (Ann.17) without affording him any further opportunity of being heard. 13. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently been controverted by Mr.B.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by stating that it is contrary to the documents on record itself. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. It is pertinent to mention herein the contents of letter No.10/777/Inq./92-93/dt. 16.12.92 (Ann.R/2) of the Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket PG College, Faizabad (UP) addressed to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Kathumar, Alwar (employer of the petitioner), as under:VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED 16. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. It is pertinent to mention herein the contents of letter No.10/777/Inq./92-93/dt. 16.12.92 (Ann.R/2) of the Kanta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket PG College, Faizabad (UP) addressed to the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Kathumar, Alwar (employer of the petitioner), as under:VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED 16. Apart from above, it is pertinent to mention herein the contents of Para 3 of the petition which depicted thus: however, the petitioner has passed his M.A. Prev.(Pol.Sc.) in the year 1985 as a Private Student from the University of Rajasthan and while doing his M.A. Final (Pol.Sc.) during 1986-87, he had indulged unfortunately, believing bonafidely that he could do his B.Ed. Degree simultaneously from Avadh University Faizabad (UP) since one of his friends namely Dharam Veer Singh got introduced him with his relative namely Om Prakash, an employee of the said University, who had entrapped him with assurance to get the petitioner admitted for the said B.Ed. Course on payment of Rs.10,000/- which he had paid him in Oct. 1985 at his village Kherli. 17. Hence, from the petitioner's own averment (supra) it is itself revealed that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- for getting the disputed B.Ed. Degree despite knowing the fact that he was appearing as Private Student in Rajasthan in MA Final (Pol.Science) whereas, he could not have done concomitantly B.Ed. Course outside Rajasthan while appearing in MA Final (Pol.Science) in the year 1986-87. From the Annexure.R/2, it is also fortified that the petitioner never went to Faizabad that being so, proves that he was neither regular student of B.Ed. nor he was enrolled in the Register of Mahavidhyalaya obviously because he was never student of that college, as quoted above. 18. The contention of the petitioner that there is violation of 'principles of natural justice' as he was not being heard before his order of termination was passed, in my view, is contrary to the documents on record itself as, it is apparent from the documents (Anns. 9&10) on record that after conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961 vide Charge-Sheet dt.24.6.93 (Ann.9) to which petitioner has also submitted his reply dt.12.7.93 (Ann.10) his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dt.23.12.93 (Ann.17). 19. 9&10) on record that after conducting an enquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961 vide Charge-Sheet dt.24.6.93 (Ann.9) to which petitioner has also submitted his reply dt.12.7.93 (Ann.10) his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dt.23.12.93 (Ann.17). 19. The further contention of the petitioner that without conclusion of the enquiry/enquiry report (finding) of the Enquiry Officer, his services cannot be terminated in view of the provisions of sub-Rule (7) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961, in my view, is also not tenable in view of the fact that in such cases if a person has been given the appointment on the basis of a forged certificate, even, the initiation of Departmental Enquiry is not necessary then what to talk of conclusion of enquiry. 20. Hence, in my considered view, the principle of "audi-alterem-partem" was duly followed in the instant case. 21. I am further of the considered view that these are all the disputed questions of facts particularly when if a person has given appointment on the basis of a forged document, then such impugned action is not open to challenge by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court hence, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge of this Court in my view had thus rightly declined to interfere in the matter while dismissing the writ petition bearing SBCWP No.4082/93 vide order dt. 8.8.1993 which was preferred against the suspension order observing as herein above.As a result of above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same accordingly stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******