Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 137 (JHR)

Kanaklata Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 8th December, 2004 issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Jamtara, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated for having given false certificate that she was unmarried at the time of her appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Teacher after the death of her father in harness. 3. The petitioner's case is that she has passed the Madhyama Examination in the year 1990. Her father was an Assistant Teacher in primary school, Ghasmarani, Masalia in the district of Dumka when her father died in harness in course of service on 17.03.1990. She applied for appointment on compassionate ground enclosing her certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Kundahit Block showing that she was unmarried, vide Annexure-2 and also an affidavit of her mother. It is stated that the deceased employee had two wives, Tara Devi and Savitri Devi. Savitri Devi had one minor daughter and one minor son at the relevant point of time. The District Education Establishment Committee, on scrutiny of her claim, took a decision in the meeting dated 22.02.1994 to appoint her as an Assistant Teacher in the scale of untrained Matric, where after the appointment letter dated 7th September, 1994 was issued, vide Annexure-4. The petitioner earlier approached this court in W.P.(S) No. 4584 of 2003 as her salary was stopped by the order as contained in Memo No.145 dated 18th January, 2002 on the ground that an enquiry was being made with regard to the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner earlier approached this court in W.P.(S) No. 4584 of 2003 as her salary was stopped by the order as contained in Memo No.145 dated 18th January, 2002 on the ground that an enquiry was being made with regard to the petitioner's appointment. This Court disposed of the writ petition in the following terms: “As it appears that an enquiry with regard to legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner is pending for about one year and nine moths and till date no order has been passed by the Respondents declaring the order of appointment, as illegal, in the interest of justice and equity, the following order is passed: (i) The Respondents including the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara or the District Superintendent of Education or any other authority intend to conclude the enquiry, they must conclude it after notice and hearing the petitioner, within a period of three months; (ii) If no final order is passed within the aforesaid period of three months, the Respondents will pay the petitioner the current salary on completion of such three months' period and admitted arrears of salary within two months thereof i.e. within a total period of five months from the date of receipt of representation; (iii) If intimation relating to enquiry is not given to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in such case, the authority will pay the current salary to the petitioner immediately and arrears within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It may be mentioned that this Court has not decided the question of legality and propriety of appointment of petitioner. This order will come into effect from the date, the petitioner produces a copy of this order before the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.” 4. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner was also served the charges, vide Annexure-12, which related to the allegations that the petitioner was married at the time of her appointment and has concealed the aforesaid facts from the authorities while seeking appointment. The petitioner furnished a reply, vide Annexure-13, denying the aforesaid charges. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner was also served the charges, vide Annexure-12, which related to the allegations that the petitioner was married at the time of her appointment and has concealed the aforesaid facts from the authorities while seeking appointment. The petitioner furnished a reply, vide Annexure-13, denying the aforesaid charges. She also stated that at the time of her appointment in 1994 she was unmarried while she got married to one Chandra Gopal Mandal, who was earlier married to one Savitri Devi, who died and thereafter he married the petitioner in the year 1995. The petitioner has also annexed an affidavit sworn by Savitri Devi claiming that she has made false allegation against the petitioner at the instance of other persons. Said Savitri Devi also claims to be the second wife of the father of the petitioner. Thereafter, the order impugned has been issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara, vide Annexure-1, terminating her services on the basis of an unanimous decision of the District Establishment Committee. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that it was bad in law having been issued without proper opportunity of hearing and allegations have been properly explained by her in her show cause, which has not been taken into account. 5. The respondent-District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara has filed affidavit. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that on complaint relating to charges of having obtained appointment on the basis of false and fake documents, an enquiry was conducted and report was called for from the Circle Officer, Kundahit. It is stated that the Circle Officer, Kundahit, who had earlier issued the certificate in respect of the petitioner as being unmarried daughter, Annexure-2/B dated 20th September, 1993, through his report as contained in Annexure-A dated 17th May, 2003, has found on enquiry that in the voter list of 1984 the petitioner has been shown to be married with one Chandra Gopal Mandal and her age has been shown as 22 years. On enquiry about the marital status of the petitioner, it was found that she was married to Chandra Gopal Mandal, who belonged to Village Masanjore, Circle Masalia under Dumka district. The name of the eldest son of the petitioner is Naresh Mandal, who is 25-26 years of age and married with two children. On enquiry about the marital status of the petitioner, it was found that she was married to Chandra Gopal Mandal, who belonged to Village Masanjore, Circle Masalia under Dumka district. The name of the eldest son of the petitioner is Naresh Mandal, who is 25-26 years of age and married with two children. Her second children is a girl aged 22 years namely Padmavati and she is also married. The third children is a son named Sushil, who is 20 years of age. In that view of the matter, the certificate earlier issued is incorrect. 6. The petitioner in his rejoinder has denied these allegations and in para 7 stated that the children named in Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit are born out of the first wife of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed a revised voter list of 1995, wherein she is shown married to one Chandra Gopal Mandal. As such the voter list relied upon by the respondents is refuted as being false and incorrect. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. These facts, which have been indicated in the preceding part of the order, denote that the petitioner has been granted appointment on the basis of a certificate issued in September, 1993 that she was unmarried. On complaint, an enquiry was conducted and report was called for from the same Circle Officer, Kundahit, who had issued the earlier certificate. Annexure-A is a report of the Circle Officer, Kundahit issued on 17th May,2003, which indicates that the petitioner's name is reflected on the voter list of 1984 showing her marriage to one Chandra Gopal Mandal and her age as 22 years. On further enquiry, it has been found that she was having 3 children and all of them are in the age group of 20 to 25-26 years, out of which 2 were also married. The petitioner, on the other hand, has tried to dispute the aforesaid statements made in the enquiry report and the voter list by annexing another voter list of the year 1995 and also stating that the children named in annexure-A are born out of the first wife of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, has tried to dispute the aforesaid statements made in the enquiry report and the voter list by annexing another voter list of the year 1995 and also stating that the children named in annexure-A are born out of the first wife of the husband of the petitioner. In any case, these facts, which are brought on record by the petitioner and the respondents, gave rise to the disputed question of facts relating to the status of the petitioner at the time of her appointment. The officer, who has issued the certificate earlier on complaint, himself stated that the petitioner was married at the time of the issuance of the said certificate, as has been found after due enquiry and verification from the voter list. On these disputed question of facts, therefore, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction is constraint to issue writ or direction in respect of the grievances of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner hinges upon determination of certain issues, which may be properly determined only on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence between the parties before any competent court having jurisdiction to entertain such issues as well. 8. I, therefore, do not find that it is a case where this Court can proceed to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty to invoke the competent forum for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law.