Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1591 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-16

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order All these cases are disposed of by this common order, since issues involved are more or less is the same. 2. Petitioners in WPS No. 3374/2007, have challenged the order dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure-7) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih (Respondent No.7), whereby petitioners were dismissed from service. They have also challenged the appellate order passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Hazaribagh Range, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.6) in the appeals preferred by them. 3. In WPS No. 4032/2007, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure-7) issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.4), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. 4. In WPS No. 3726/2007, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure-6) passed by the Chairman-cum-Superintendent of Police, Koderma (Respondent No.4), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of constable, was rejected. 5. Petitioners have commonly prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to appoint them on the post of constable, on the basis' of the results published by the Selection Board, whereby the petitioners were declared as successful and on the basis of the report of the Medical Board wherein the petitioners have been declared as fit for service. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement no. 1/04 published in the newspapers for appointment of constables, the petitioners had submitted their respective applications alongwith the documents pertaining to their educational qualifications. They were issued admit cards to appear at the written examination and also at the physical test. They had appeared at the written examination as well as in the physical test and in the final results, they were declared successful. Thereafter, they were referred for their medical examination before the constituted Medical Board and on the basis of the affirmative report .of the Medical Board, they were finally selected. While, the petitioners in WPS Nos. 4032/07 and 3374/07, were given appointment letters pursuant to which, they had joined at their respective places of posting, the petitioner in WPS No. 3726/07 though granted appointment letter, but was not allowed to join his posting., 8. Assailing the impugned orders of dismissal, and the impugned order of refusing to accept the joining of the petitioner in WPS 3726/07, learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced the following grounds: 1. Assailing the impugned orders of dismissal, and the impugned order of refusing to accept the joining of the petitioner in WPS 3726/07, learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced the following grounds: 1. That the impugned order of dismissal is illegal and against the principles of natural justice since, they have been passed without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners to explain and, and also without conducting any departmental proceeding whatsoever. 2. The stand taken by the respondents that certain interpolations in the Master Chart was made in which it was found that the names of the petitioners were introduced by way of interpolation and that, their applications were received after the last date of submission of applications, is misconceived. Learned Counsel argues that admittedly, applications of the petitioners were entertained by the concerned authorities of the respondents, where-after the petitioners were given admit cards and were allowed to appear at the written test and also at be physical test followed by their respective medical examination. No dispute has been raised regarding the 'performance of the petitioners in any' of the tests and their qualifying by all the prescribed standards at the test. The Master Chart being a document within the exclusive custody of the concerned authorities of the respondents, the petitioners cannot be accused of having any access to the documents or of practicing any fraud or deception and the petitioners having been finally selected upon their competing at the requisite test, and having been appointed, their appointment can be terminated only in accordance with the prescribed Rules and only after recording a finding by way of a departmental proceeding, of their guilt on any specific charge. 9. Learned counsel would refer in this content to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and others vs. State of Bihar and others [1991 Supp (1) SCC 330] and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uptron India Ltd VS. Shammi Bhan and another [(1998)6 Supreme Court Cases 538] and also to the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case Ranjay Kumar Singh VS. State of Jharkhand and Others. [LPA No. 296 of 2007] and in support of their submissions, learned counsel also refer to the judgment of the Single Bench of this court in the case of Namo Narayan Singh VS. State of Jharkhand and Others. [LPA No. 296 of 2007] and in support of their submissions, learned counsel also refer to the judgment of the Single Bench of this court in the case of Namo Narayan Singh VS. State of Jharkhand and others [ 2008(3) JCR 536 (Jhr)]. 10. If is also argued that a similar issue where appointment of selected candidates was cancelled, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in the case of Krishnaji & others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others [ 2006(4) JLJR 702 ]. The stand taken by the respondent State in the aforesaid case was that after declaration of the results of the examination held, irregularity .in the recruitment of constables for Hazaribagh Range, Police Headquarters, Jharkhand, Ranchi was detected. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted in which it was found that at the behest of Shri C.P. Kiran, the then Superintendent of Police, Chatra-cum-Chairman, Constable Recruitment Commiltee-3, large scale irregularities were committed in the selection process. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and the issues raised in the writ application, the Division Bench of this court had issued directions to the respondents inter alia to make appointment according to the select merit list of successful candidates in the four districts of the State namely, Hazaribagh. Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancies, excluding 932 candidates identified by the Inquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection. Such appointments of the selected candidates, excluding the 932 candidates, was to be made within two months from the date of the order. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel, do not come within the purview of the 932 excluded candidates. The judgment passed in the case of Krishnaji (supra) and the corresponding directions contained therein, are binding upon the respondents and it leaves no scope whatsoever for the respondents to conduct any further inquiry and to weed out further candidates on the further plea of their being the beneficiaries of malpractice. It is further argued that if at all, the respondents were of the opinion that any further inquiry was necessary, then they should have sought for modification of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Krishnaji (supra) seeking permission to conduct a fresh inquiry. It is further argued that if at all, the respondents were of the opinion that any further inquiry was necessary, then they should have sought for modification of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Krishnaji (supra) seeking permission to conduct a fresh inquiry. Learned counsel argues that this having not been done, the respondents could not possibly undertake any fresh inquiry and proceed to take an arbitrary decision to terminate the services of the petitioners or to refuse their joining even after issuance of appointment letters. 11. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken by them is as follows: 1. Admittedly, the petitioners had appeared at the written test as also at the physical test and at the medical test and in the final results, they were declared as selected and appointment letters were Issued to them. 2. Admittedly, the present petitioners do not come within the purview of 932 excluded candidates whose candidature was excluded by the judgment of this court in the case of Krishnaji (supra). 3. However, after issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners and several other candidates, the Master Chart pertaining to the selection of the candidates was revivified and the names of 139 candidates gaining appointment by practicing fraud and deception, were again detected. On further scrutiny, the selection of 23 out of 139 short listed candidates, were found to be totally irregular and illegal and as such their services were terminated by the impugned order and one of them namely, the petitioner in WPS No. 372,6/ 2007 was not allowed to join his place of posting. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents would argue that a further scrutiny of the Master Chart was undertaken only in the light of the spirit of the judgment passed in the case of Krishnaji (supra) and to ensure that no candidate had obtained appointment by practicing fraud and deception. Learned counsel submits further that it was detected that 23 short listed candidates and the other candidates including the present petitioners, were the beneficiaries of appointment by malpractice which they had gained with the connivance of the then Superintendent of Police C.P. Kiran, against .whom a departmental inquiry has been initiated. 13. Learned counsel submits further that it was detected that 23 short listed candidates and the other candidates including the present petitioners, were the beneficiaries of appointment by malpractice which they had gained with the connivance of the then Superintendent of Police C.P. Kiran, against .whom a departmental inquiry has been initiated. 13. From the admitted facts, undisputedly the petitioners had submitted their respective applications and pursuant thereto, they were granted admit cards and were allowed to appear at the written examination as .well as at the physical test and finally at the medical test. At all these tests, petitioners had qualified and in the final results, they were declared successful. Admittedly, petitioners do not come within the purview of 932 excluded candidates. After the second round of scrutiny, all these petitioners were granted appointment letters and while they (except the petitioner in WPS 3726/2007) were allowed to join at their respective place of posting, they were allowed to continue to render their services for sometime. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents would argue that such appointment letters were issued only by way of temporary appointment and it could be terminated at any time even without giving any prior notice to the appointees. Learned counsel however, is not able to refer to the relevant provisions of the procedural law under the Police Manual, whereby appointments given to the petitioners can be termed as temporary. The Rule referred to by the learned counsel applies in the case of appointment against the temporary vacancies or ad-hoc vacancies and not to the permanent vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed or letters of appointment were issued. It is not a case where the petitioners had not appeared at any of the tests at all and yet, they were declared qualified and selected. This fact indicates that the name of -'the petitioners were available even from the initial stage when admit cards were issued to them. Furthermore, after conducting thorough inquiry into the cases of the candidates who were declared selected, respondents had finally short listed 932 candidates who were allegedly the beneficiaries of malpractice. The petitioners do not fall within the category of 932 excluded candidates and on being satisfied and also pursuant to the direction contained in the Division Bench judgment of this court passed in the case of Krishnaji (supra), respondents have issued appointment letters to the petitioners. The petitioners do not fall within the category of 932 excluded candidates and on being satisfied and also pursuant to the direction contained in the Division Bench judgment of this court passed in the case of Krishnaji (supra), respondents have issued appointment letters to the petitioners. Having thus granted appointment, the termination of their appointments could be done only in accordance with the procedural law as stipulated in the Rules. If the respondents had wanted to terminate the services of the petitioners on the basis of some general allegations, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give a chance to the petitioners to explain their respective position. Apparently, the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to be heard, nor any departmental proceeding was conducted against them on the charge alleging malpractice. 15. In the case of Nama Narayan Singh (supra), a similar issue came up before this court for consideration. On the facts of the case, the court had observed that before terminating the services, the respondents did not give opportunity to the writ petitioner therein of being heard and it was thus, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice 16. In the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh (supra), identical issue came up before this court for consideration, where the writ .petitioner was admittedly not identified to be in the category of 932 excluded persons and he was allowed to join the post of constable and later, his appointment was terminated. The Division Bench had quashed the impugned order of termination. 17. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made, these writ applications are allowed. The orders impugned in WPS Nos. 4032/2007, 3374/2007 and 3726/2007, are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities shall allow the petitioners to join their post on the basis of the letters of appointment given to them. However, if the respondent authorities intend to take any action against the petitioners on any specific charge, they would be at liberty to take any action against all or any of the petitioners, but only after serving them charges and conducting inquiry and by giving the individual petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. With these observations, these writ applications are disposed of.