Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 66 (PAT)

Ramashraya Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-15

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner as contained in Annexure 3 and also against the order as contained in Annexure 5 whereby and whereunder his appeal has been rejected. 3. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable on 1.9.1988 and while he was continuing in service, it was detected by the authorities that he had procured a forged and fabricated caste certificate for obtainment of service showing himself as scheduled caste candidate. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in the departmental proceeding charges framed against the petitioner were found proved and accordingly finding it a case of misconduct, dismissed him from service. Appeal filed against the order of dismissal has also been dismissed giving rise to this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner was Rajput by caste whereas his mother was Dusadhin by caste and, therefore, the Block Development Officer at the relevant time granted him caste certificate showing him scheduled caste candidate and this fact has not been found to be untrue even in course of enquiry. It is further submitted by learned counsel that even in course of enquiry one of the witnesses namely Babu Lal Ram deposed in the enquiry that the mother of the petitioner was Dusadhin by caste. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner continued in service for more than nine years and, therefore, equitable treatment could have been given to him and in no way he could have been dismissed frorr the services. 5. According to the case of respondents as made out in the counter affidavit, it appears that the father of the petitioner was Rajput by caste but about his mother no evidence could be gathered and, therefore, it was held in the departmental enquiry that the petitioner even though belonged to the general category, obtained a false and fabricated caste certificate for obtainment of his services as Police Constable. Learned counsel for the State submits that about caste of the mother of the petitioner enquiries were made but it could not be ascertained as to who was the mother of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that about caste of the mother of the petitioner enquiries were made but it could not be ascertained as to who was the mother of the petitioner. However, from the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners appears that the prosecution witness Babulal Ram had deposed that mother of Ihe petitioner was Dusadhin by caste. When learned counsel for the State was confronted to this fact, he could not give any satisfactory explanation. In view of the facts as referred to above, therefore, it could not have been held in positive terms by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was not a member of scheduled caste and he obtained a forged and fabricated caste certificate for obtainment of his job. Besides these aspects of the matter, it appears that the petitioner continued in service for more than nine years and by the impugned order he has been dismissed from service with effect from 2.2.1998. 6. This question, however, substantially had fallen for consideration before this court in the case of Madhusudan V/s. State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2002(1) P.L.J.R.-767. This court in the case of Madhusudan (supra) held that the appointment of the delinquent was a result of fait accompli and he was appointed nine years back and, therefore, held that it would not be appropriate to allow the State to terminate the services of the delinquent employee. The case at hand appears to be almost similar inasmuch as that the petitioner was appointed sometimes in 1988 and has been terminated in 1998 almost after nine years. 7. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, therefore, it is held that it would not be appropriate in this case to terminate the services of the petitioner at this stage. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to any advantage which would be available for the scheduled caste candidates. 9. No costs.