Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 284 (JHR)

Sumitra Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2005-04-13

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
Order In the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 132 dated 9.2.2004 issued by the District Education Officer-respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that the educational certificate furnished by her at the time of appointment on compassionate ground was found forged. 2. It is admitted case that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1996, after the death of her father, Late Shivnath Gope, who was working as headmaster in the Koidi Primary School, Singhbhum West. The petitioner was appointed on Class-IV post by the District Establishment Committee, after following the prescribed norms and procedure. Subsequently, somebody complained that the certificate of the petitioner's educational qualification is a forged one. One matter was brought before the District Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 9.9.2003 held under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. It was found that earlier a report was submitted by the Headmaster, Bhoya Middle School dated 18.11.1996 that the certificate issued to the petitioner was genuine and on that basis the payment of the petitioner's salary was made. However, the Committee found that the petitioner has submitted two certificates; one of 7th pass and another of 8th pass and taking notice of the same, the Committee took a decision that the appointment of the petitioner appears to be based on a forged certificate and a proceeding is required to be initiated in respect thereof, in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter without framing any charge and without initiating any departmental proceeding, the impugned order dated 9.2.2004 has been issued dismissing the petitioner's services. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner's educational certificate was found fake and forged and on that basis she has been dismissed. It has been stated that a notice was also issued to the petitioner but in her reply (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit) she has stated that in the year 1994 her residential house was put on fire by some anti-social elements in which the entire household belongings along with the documents and certificates were destroyed. 4. Mr. It has been stated that a notice was also issued to the petitioner but in her reply (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit) she has stated that in the year 1994 her residential house was put on fire by some anti-social elements in which the entire household belongings along with the documents and certificates were destroyed. 4. Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal (Annexure5) has been issued on the ground of the decision taken in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee held on 9.9.2003. But no decision was taken for dismissal of services in the said meeting and it was only decided to initiate a proceeding in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that order of dismissal of an employee is a major punishment and the same cannot be awarded without framing a charge and initiating an enquiry giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to defend herself. Admittedly, no charge was framed and there was no departmental enquiry on any such charge in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in view of the said reply nothing was to enquire further and that the decision has been rightly taken. Learned counsel submitted that the said dismissal is not illegal as the opportunity was given to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause. 6. I find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, no charge-sheet was served. There was no departmental enquiry on the alleged charge of submitting a forged certificate. The petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend herself. She was only given a notice informing the allegation which she had denied. Thereafter, without establishing the charge by adducing evidence, the punishment of dismissal has been imposed. The respondent have thus acted contrary to the procedure established by law as well as contrary to the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and have arbitrarily issued the impugned order of dismissal dated 9.2.2004, causing serious civil consequences to the petitioner. This writ application is thus allowed. The impugned order dated 9.2.2004 as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed. The petitioner stands reinstated in the service without any break and with all consequential benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs.