Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 726 (PAT)

Brij Nandan Chaudhary v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-21

J.N.BHATT

body2006
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order of his dismissal from service recorded, on 25.1.1985. He has also sought its quashing with consequential benefits. 2. Let there be a few material facts giving rise to this petition. On 15.10.1974, the petitioner came to be appointed as Bill Clerk in the Directorate of Employment & Training, Government of Bihar. In the year 1979, a limited competitive examination of the Lower Grade Secretariat staff was conducted and the petitioner became successful in the said examination and was allotted Irrigation Department for appointment on the post of Assistant by virtue of allotment letter under memo No. 58 dated 14.1.1981. Thus, the petitioner was appointed in the Directorate on the post of Assistant. 3. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding came to be initiated against the petitioner, inter alia, on the charge that the petitioner had obtained forged allotment letter from the Personnel Department dated 29.7.1981. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner represented his case unsuccessfully. The charge came to be proved and the petitioner has been held to be delinquent for forging the allotment latter as a result of which, the dismissal order came to be passed on 25.1.1985. The petitioner questioned it by filing an appeal before the Principal Secretary. Labour Department, Government of Bihar but without any success. 4. The petitioner thereafter had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 11670 of 1997 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in which a direction came to be issued to respondent No. 2 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner came to be considered and it came to be rejected. The punishment of dismissal imposed came to be upheld. Therefore, the occasion for second round of litigation by filing this writ petition has occurred. 5. On behalf of the respondent authorities, a counter affidavit has been filed, sworn by the Examination Controller who has stated to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. It is found from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was terminated from service after being found guilty in the departmental proceeding in the year 1985, which was also confirmed in the appeal. It is found from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was terminated from service after being found guilty in the departmental proceeding in the year 1985, which was also confirmed in the appeal. The first writ petition came to be filed after 12 years wherein this Court had directed for consideration of the representation. The authority considered it and found without any substance. 6. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the pleadings, as well as, factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing on the record to show that there was valid appointment and allotment order which came to be examined in the departmental inquiry finding the petitioner guilty, resulting into order of dismissal. It is found that there is no material in support of the present petition which could go to show that the competent authority had issued the allotment order in the Irrigation Department. In the domestic inquiry, it has been proved that the Assistant Director of Employment and. Training, Mr Arun Kumar, filed a complaint, on 13.9.1983 to the Director, respondent No. 4, intimating therein that letter no. 624 dated 29.7.1981, allegedly, issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department had not been sent by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, rather the same was typed by one lady clerk working in the Directorate office on the typewriter of Animal Husbandary Department and cyclostyled copy was taken out in the Animal Husbandary Department. It has been proved in the departmental inquiry that the petitioner had managed to remain in the Directorate on the basis of such forged letter. Therefore, he had informed in writing on the information which was given to him by the lady who had typed the letter and as such, departmental inquiry came to be commenced which ended into dismissal of the petitioner finding him guilty for forging the letter in question. 7. It is settled proposition of law that in the jurisdictional sweep of the writ court while examining the claim on right in a petition tike one on hand where the departmental punishment has been recorded on appreciation of evidence, that ordinarily, should not be reversed unless the findings are found to be totally perverse, without any evidence, or are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Nothing has been, successfully, pointed out to indicate that any one of the above three celebrated doctrines is attracted in the instant case. 8. Apart from there being unduly long delay and acquiescence and laches on the part of the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that the order of dismissal recorded against him on the ground of forged letter in question for appointment and allotment is after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also, specifically, found from the affidavit in reply, that there was no demand for supply of documents on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In the circumstances, petitioner has no case. A person who has been dismissed from service for having resorted to forged document for self gain, as in the present case and having been found guilty on a successfully held departmental inquiry, cannot claim any protection of right as there would not arise any such question or any right in his favour. This Court, therefore, holds that the present petition questioning the impugned order of dismissal from service of the petitioner is maritless and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly, it shall stand dismissed. Notice is discharged. No costs.