Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 721 (PAT)

Jai Ram Singh v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-19

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Ms. Sheema Ali Khan, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chhote Lal Narain Singh, S.C. I representing the State. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge his removal from service as Chowkidar attached to Shivsagar Police Station in the district of Sasaram by an order passed by the District Magistrate under his memo No. 1251, dated 15.11.2003. The order gives two grounds for the petitioners removal from service. One is that there were only ten beats under Shivsagar Police Station. It, therefore, followed that the petitioners appointment as Chowkidar for Circle No. 1, beat No. 11 under that Police Station was illegal. The other ground was that a criminal case being Shivsagar Police Station No. 24/99 was already instituted against the petitioner on 12.3.1999 for cheating in connection with his appointment and on that basis a recommendation was also made by the Superintendent of Police for his removal from service. 3. Ms. Khan submitted that the order was passed on error of facts and a confusion was created by the case of two other people who were appointed as chowkidars under the Police Station at a different time. 4. It appears that two people, namely, Rajeshwar Singh and Ramayan Singh came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3995 of 1997 seeking a direction for regularization of their services as chowkidars under Shivsagar Police Station. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28.01.1999. By that order, the Court did not make any positive directions in favour of those petitioners but directed the Superintendent of Police to consider their claim for regularization in accordance with the Rules. The writ petition gave rise to a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 266 of 2000. In pursuance of directions gave in the contempt proceeding, the District Magistrate enquired into the matter and found that there were only ten beats under Shivsagar Police Station and beats 11, 12 and 13 (the last two being those on which those two people claimed to be working) were non-existent. The contempt petition was dismissed in light of the enquiry report by the District Magistrate. It seems that the matter was taken to its logical end and the petitioner too, who was shown to be working on beat No. 11 was removed from services. 5. Ms. The contempt petition was dismissed in light of the enquiry report by the District Magistrate. It seems that the matter was taken to its logical end and the petitioner too, who was shown to be working on beat No. 11 was removed from services. 5. Ms. Khan contended that it is quite unreasonable and erroneous to bracket the petitioner along with Rajeshwar Singh & Ramayan Singh, the two petitioners in the earlier writ petition. She submitted that those two people were never appointed as chowkidars and they came to the Court praying for their regularization in service. On the other hand, the petitioner was duly appointed by the competent authority, namely, the District Magistrate. In case, he was shown to be working on a beat, that is said to be non-existent, it was a lapse by the Police Station in assigning him the duty. Since, his appointment was valid and proper, it was the duty of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to give him duty on a proper beat and there was no reason to remove him from duty for any mistake on the part of the Officer-in-charge. In support of the contention that the petitioner was duly and validly appointed by the competent authority, she relied upon the orders dated 24.03.1991 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram (Annexure-2) and dated 28.03.1994 issued by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) (At Annexure-4). 6. The State Counsel pointed out that the very appointment of the petitioner was invalid as it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts. The State Counsel referred to Annexure 1 to the writ petition which is the petitioners application for appointment. In the application, he described himself as son of Devraj Singh and requested for his appointment as chowkidar on the vacancy arising as a result of the death of the previous chowkidar, namely Dukhi Kahar, son of Ram Lagan Kahar. The Officer-in-charge made an endorsement on that application in favour of the petitioner. He was initially appointed as chowkidar by order dated 24.03.1991 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram. In this order, the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 9. He is described by his name and as son of Devraj Singh. The appointment is made in place of the previous chowkidar of village Khairi. The appointment was confirmed by order, dated 28.03.1994 issued by the District Magistrate. In this order, the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 9. He is described by his name and as son of Devraj Singh. The appointment is made in place of the previous chowkidar of village Khairi. The appointment was confirmed by order, dated 28.03.1994 issued by the District Magistrate. In this order, the petitioner is described as son of Dukhi Singh of village Nimia. 7. Mr. Singh submitted that it was apparent that the petitioner had obtained appointment by misrepresenting himself as son of the previous chowkidar who was initially described as Dukhi Kahar but whose name was later changed to Dukhi Singh to show him as the father of the petitioner. 8. Ms. Khan strongly controverted the allegation. She submitted that the wrong parentage stated in the order of the District Magistrate was a mistake committed in the Office and later at the time of medical test, the petitioner had got the error corrected. 9. At this stage, I would refrain from making any observation/comment whether the wrong description of the petitioner in the appointment order issued by the District Magistrate was a mistake or an act of deliberate misrepresentation by the petitioner. More so, since a criminal case on the same facts is pending against him. But the least can be said is that his appointment was made under the misapprehension that he was the son of the previous deceased chowkidar under Shivsagar Police Station. This is apparent from a bare reading of Annexure 4 by which a number of people were appointed as chowkidars under different Police Stations in substitution (evaz) following the death of their respective fathers or brothers. It is undeniable that at the time of appointment, it was not realised by the competent authority that the petitioner was not the son of the previous deceased chowkidar, but was claiming appointment independently on the vacancy arising from the death of the previous chowkidar. 10. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned removal from services does not warrant any interference by this Court. This writ petition is dismissed.