Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 608 (JHR)

Geetanjali Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2008-06-18

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as primary teacher by issue of an appointment letter dated 30th April, 1988 as contained in Annexure-2. The appointment letter contains several conditions particularly clause-4, wherein it is mentioned that the appointment was being made on the basis of the certificates submitted by the applicants and if after enquiry/verification any of the educational certificate is found to be not genuine, in that case the services would be terminated and appropriate action would be taken against the applicants. 3. Pursuant to the appointment made, the petitioner joined the service. Thereafter, the certificates, submitted by the petitioner with regard to Teachers Training alongwith the certificate of all the candidates were sent for verification/enquiry to the Institutions from where it were issued. It appears that the Teachers Training certificate of altogether 38 candidates were sent to St. Mary's Women's Primary Teacher's Training College, Deoghar, the Institutions from where those candidates said to have passed the Teachers Training examination. The petitioner was one of the candidates, who have passed the teachers training examination from the said Institution. 4. By issue of Annexure-5 dated 30th August, 1988, a report was sent by the Principal of the said Institutions, i.e. St. Mary's Women's Primary Teacher's Training College, Deoghar, to the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka after verification of the teachers intimating that out of 38 candidates, the certificate of two candidates namely Geetanjali Kumari, i.e. the petitioner and of one Pushpa Kumari were found to be fake and forged. 5. Pursuant to the report of the Principal of the Teachers' Training College, action was taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and, thereafter, a F.I.R. was also lodged against her. 6. The petitioner by filing this writ application in the month of June 2007 has challenged the termination of her service made in the year 1988, i.e. after about 20 years. On being questioned about this inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the criminal case against the petitioner remained pending for a petty long time and only after she was acquitted from the charges by the appellate court on 20th December, 2006, she has filed this writ application. 7. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the criminal case against the petitioner remained pending for a petty long time and only after she was acquitted from the charges by the appellate court on 20th December, 2006, she has filed this writ application. 7. Mr. Singh, submitted that the termination from service of the petitioner was made without servin9 any notice to show cause or without giving any chance of being heard. He further submitted that without initiating any departmental proceeding the petitioner could not have been terminated. 8. It appears from the appointment letter, i.e. Annexure-2, that it itself contains specific condition that the appointment was being made on the basis of the certificates submitted by the petitioner and if on enquiry or verification if any of the certificates is found to be forged or not genuine, her services may be terminated and an appropriate action would be taken against her. The petitioner accepting the said condition joined the service and within a period of one month of her joining it was found on enquiry that the certificate of Teachers Training, submitted by the petitioner, was forged and, therefore, pursuant to the condition mentioned in the appointment letter, her services were terminated. 9. In such condition, in my view, no show cause notice or a chance of being heard was required to be given to the petitioner because the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the condition of verification of certificates and finding the same to be genuine, which the petitioner accepted and joined. Therefore, the submissions made by Mr. Singh that the termination of the petitioner from service suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be accepted, hence the same is hereby rejected. 10. It also appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1988 and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice after a long delay of 20 years, which also 'goes against the petitioner. 11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.