Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1015 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-6) issued vide memo no. 4314 by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4), whereby and where under the petitioner's appointment on the post of constable after being selected, has been cancelled and the petitioner has been dismissed from service. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of constable in which he was working, on the ground that he comes within the zone of consideration since he had qualified in the entire test and was declared successful by the Selection Board and he joined his service after receipt of the appointment letter issue to him. 2. The case of the petitioner in short, is that in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper inviting applications from candidates for their appointment to the post of constable, the petitioner had applied and he was allotted admit card bearing roll no. 3331. He had appeared at the written test as also at the other requisite tests including physical test, in which he was found to be eligible both by virtue of his qualification of being a matriculate and also by virtue of possessing the requisite physical standards. After following the entire selection procedure, the Selection Board had found the petitioner successful and issued appointment letter to him on 23.4.2007. Upon receipt of his appointment letter, he joined his post of constable, which was accepted in the District of Hazaribagh, and he was allotted constable no. 1394 and had also received salary for one month. However, vide letter dated 26.5.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4), the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service, on the ground that there was over-writing and interpolation in the Master Chart. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice but his reply was not accepted and by the impugned order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-6), he was dismissed from service. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice but his reply was not accepted and by the impugned order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-6), he was dismissed from service. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal, on the ground that it is illegal and against the principle of natural justice, since the order has been passed without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to explain and also without conducting any departmental proceeding whatsoever. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, explains that the ground taken for the termination of the petitioner's service that there is interpolation in the Master Chart, is totally misconceived and is certainly not applicable to the petitioner since there is no interpolation whatsoever in the column bearing the name and roll number of the petitioner, although such interpolation may have existed in the various other columns referring to various other candidates and not to the petitioner. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 330, learned counsel argues that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner without complying with the rules of natural justice, is illegal and cannot be sustained. Referring to yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Shan and Another reported in (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538 and two judgments of this court in the case of Awadh Prasad vs. The State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2006(4) JLJR 573 and Kumari Nupur Ekka and Syed Wasim vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 575 , learned counsel submits that the same principle of law has been reiterated in all the aforementioned judgments declaring that the termination of the petitioner's service's without holding any inquiry and without affording opportunity to the petitioner, is against the principle of natural justice and is thoroughly illegal. 4. On the other hand, case of the respondent State, as it appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. On the other hand, case of the respondent State, as it appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, is that though the Selection Board had earlier declared the results of the candidates who had appeared at the test and the petitioner was also found successful and he was accordingly given appointment letter, but subsequently, it was detected by the Selection Board after inquiry, that there was interpolation and overwriting in the Master Chart which indicated that malpractices was indulged by deceitful means by interested persons. The Selection Board had identified the case of 932 candidates against whom such allegation of malpractice was found prima facie true. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition being WPS No. 1242 of 2006 alongwith other analogous cases, directed the respondents to make appointment, according to the selection/merit list of the successful candidates declared successful in the four Districts of the State namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancy, excluding the 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer found to be the beneficiaries of the malpractice during the selection process. It is alleged by the respondents that the Master Chart was scrutinized by the Selection Board and it was found that the page on which the petitioner's name was entered, was containing names of 10 candidates, while on the other pages of the Master Chart, entries of only 5 candidates were made as per normal practice. It was also found that the handwriting and the ink used in the page containing the names of 10 candidates, was different from the other pages of the Master Chart. It was detected that in the page where interpolation was found, the names of 5 candidates with their respective original roll numbers were mentioned while the names and roll numbers of the other candidates was inserted by referring to unnatural roll numbers by adding 'A' after their roll numbers. This could have been done either by removing the original page or by leaving it blank for inserting the entries later on in order to benefit such persons who were not actually selected. 6. This could have been done either by removing the original page or by leaving it blank for inserting the entries later on in order to benefit such persons who were not actually selected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that the above ground is not applicable to the petitioner as because, admittedly, the column in which the petitioner's name and roll number have been mentioned, is clean and does not contain any interpolation whatsoever and merely because interpolation occurs in one of the pages of the Master Chart in which the petitioner's name is also mentioned, though not in the interpolated column, it cannot be said that the petitioner had indulged in any malpractice or that, his selection was not in accordance with the genuine procedure or that, he was not one of the candidates who was actually declared successful and found eligible for appointment. 7. From the facts and circumstances, as indicated above, it does not appear from the counter-affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner's name and roll number was inserted by way of any interpolation or by addition or by filling some unnatural roll number by adding 'A' thereto. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard, nor was any department inquiry conducted against him on any such allegation of malpractice. If the respondents had wanted to terminate the services of the petitioner on the basis of some general allegations, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give a chance to the petitioner to explain his position. This having not been done, the termination of the petitioner's services is against the principle of natural justice, and cannot therefore be sustained. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and by this Court that cancellation of appointment of Government Servants without affording opportunity to be served and without adherence to the principle of natural justice, is illegal. 8. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-6-2007 (Annexure-6) issued vide memo No. 4314 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4), is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post on which he was initially appointed, forthwith. It is observed that if the respondents intend to take any action against the petitioner on any just grounds, they may do so only after complying with the principle of natural justice.