Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 583 (JHR)

Hari Kishun Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-08-09

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2005
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against Order No. 162/2000, Godda dated 28th December, 2000 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Godda, in Departmental Proceeding No. 1 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed on the basis of enquiry report, which is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Class IVth employee (Peon) in the Civil Court, Godda, vide letter No. 663, dated 28th September, 1989. While in service, he was put under suspension by Order No. 29/1994, dated 5th March, 1994 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Godda on the allegation of producing forged certificate in proof of his age. Thereafter, charge-sheet was served on him on 18th March, 1994 but without any departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from service vide Order No. 87/1995, dated 22nd December, 1995. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before Patna High Court in CWJC No. 932 of 1996, wherein, the Court by its judgment dated 5th November, 1999 held the order of dismissal illegal, the petitioner having been dismissed from service without initiation of a departmental proceeding. The order of dismissal was, accordingly, set aside and the petitioner was reinstated in service with a liberty to the authorities to act in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents initiated Departmental Proceeding No. 1 of 2000 vide charge-sheet dated 6th February, 2000. It was alleged that the petitioner produced forged certificate in proof of his age. The petitioner contested in the said enquiry and filed his show cause reply, denying the allegation. The enquiry officer-cum-Sub-ordinate Judge-I, Civil Court, Godda, vide his enquiry report dated 8th May, 2000 held the charges proved against the petitioner, including the charge relating to production of forged and fabricated certificate in support of his age. 5. The petitioner having been found guilty by the enquiry officer, the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner on 21st November, 2000 to which he replied on 2nd December, 2000. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority having agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, dismissed the petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 28th December, 2000. 6. 5. The petitioner having been found guilty by the enquiry officer, the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner on 21st November, 2000 to which he replied on 2nd December, 2000. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority having agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, dismissed the petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 28th December, 2000. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence, as were laid down before the enquiry officer, have not been properly appreciated. According to the learned counsel, there were two persons with almost similar name i.e. Hari Kishun Yadav and Hari Kishun Gope with similar parentage, residing in one village, as reported by the Government officer. The petitioner had produced genuine School Leaving Certificate, wherein, it was shown that he had studied up to Standard VIII and his date of birth was 3rd February, 1964 but on the basis of the certificate of another person with similar name like the petitioner and having similar parentage of the same village, wherein, the year of birth has been shown as 1958, the certificate of the petitioner has been held to be forged. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to place reliance on the material evidence, which were exhibited before the enquiry officer, to suggest that there were two persons of similar name Le. Hari Kishun Yadav and Hari Kishun Gope and both of them were of the same village with common name of father Le. late Santosi Yadav/ Santoshi Yadav. However, such submission can not be accepted in this case. It can not be presumed that in the same village, there are two persons of same name and their fathers name were also same. So far as the Exhibits, including Ext. 8 one of the certificate, are concerned, the enquiry officer having appreciated the evidence, it is not open for this Court to reappreciate such evidence and thereby, to sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer under its writ jurisdiction. 8. This Court has noticed that the enquiry officer, an officer of the rank of Sub-Judge, having appreciated the evidence came to a definite conclusion that in the School Register the name of Hari Kishun Gope son of Sri Santoshi Gope, resident of Jiran Kothari, Police Station-Maharir District-Santhal Parganas was recor showing his date of birth as 4th July, 1958 on the basis of which a genuine certificate (Ext. 6) was issued and the petitioner obtained service under the Commandant, Homeguard, Sahibganj. But later on, the petitioner produced a forged and fabricated certificate (Ext. 8), showing his name as Hari Kishun Yadav son of Santobi Yadav, resident of village Jiran Kothari, District -Godda (Santhal Parganas) and has shown his date of birth as 3rd February, 1964. 9. In the facts and circumstances, for the reasons, stated above, as this Court is not in a position to discard the enquiry report and as all the procedures have been followed in the departmental proceeding and prior to issuance of the impugned order of dismissal, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. There being no merit, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.