Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 52 (MEG)

Kulwant Tagore v. Cantonment Board Shillong

2014-04-02

S.R.SEN

body2014
Judgment S.R. Sen, J. This instant petition is directed against the impugned order for compulsory retirement dated 30.04.12 and Resolution No. 13 dated 26.09.12. 2. The petitioner's case in nut shell is that, "the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 30.04.12 has imposed major penalty for compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner for alleged submission of fake qualification certificate. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed an Appeal before the Respondent No. 1 for setting aside and quashing the said penalty on the grounds that the disciplinary proceeding against her was carried out behind her back and in contravention of the provisions of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules as she has never been given any opportunity to cross examine the witness but the fate of the Appeal was not different as the same was dismissed without any speaking order." 3. Mr. VK Jindal, the learned senior counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the petitioner joined service in the office of the Cantonment Board since 16.02.76 as Safaiwala. The learned senior counsel further contended that on 16.06.10, a post of Sanitary Jamadar was advertised on promotion. Thereafter, on 26.06.10, the petitioner approached Mr. RG Pradhan, President of Shillong Cantonment Board Employees' Union for help in applying the said post of Sanitary Jamadar in which he himself drafted the application duly signed by the petitioner. The learned senior counsel also argued that, the petitioner did not submit any certificate issued by Ruprekha Parishad School to Mr. RG Pradhan and on 2.08.10, the petitioner joined to the post of Sanitary Jamadar. Further, on 10.06.11 Mr. RG Pradhan filed a complaint with the Cantonment Board, some other complaints were also received by the Board that the petitioner place a fake school certificate; accordingly she was placed under suspension on 19.09.11. 4. An inquiry was conducted, FIR lodged and memorandum of charges were supplied. During inquiry, it was found out that the school certificate issued in the name of Ruprekha Parishad School is fake one. The learned senior counsel informed the Court that, it is a fact the petitioner was never a student of Ruprekha Parishad School nor she has submitted any certificate to Mr. RG Pradhan. During inquiry, it was found out that the school certificate issued in the name of Ruprekha Parishad School is fake one. The learned senior counsel informed the Court that, it is a fact the petitioner was never a student of Ruprekha Parishad School nor she has submitted any certificate to Mr. RG Pradhan. Further, the learned senior counsel contended that, while passing the order for compulsory retirement, Rule-12-E of the CSFR has not been followed as the inquiry was already conducted, so necessary direction may be passed as this Court deemed fit and proper. 5. On the other hand, Mr. SP Mahanta, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the respondent Cantonment Board contended that, the petitioner has submitted a fake certificate on 22.06.10 along with her application duly signed by her. The learned counsel further contended that, the petitioner has also submitted another certificate in the name of Islamia Lower Primary School and by submitting such fake certificates; the petitioner has succeeded to get herself promoted to the post of Sanitary Jamadar but when an inquiry was conducted, it was found out that these certificates submitted by the petitioner are fake, as such, compelled the Cantonment Board to take necessary action against her. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Cantonment Board further argued that, such an act on the part of the petitioner was criminal in nature, as such, she is not fit to continue in service any longer and it is a fit case where she should have been dismissed from service. However, considering her long period of service on humanitarian grounds, the respondent Cantonment Board asked her to go for compulsory retirement. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties apart from the other points, one thing remains undisputed that, the certificate placed or submitted by the petitioner is a fake one because the petitioner was never a student of Ruprekha Parishad School basis on which the petitioner got her promotion to the post of Sanitary Jamadar. Further, even if Mr. RG Pradhan has written her application and procured the certificate; that cannot be done without her consent, as such, she cannot escape the liability. 8. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence that the petitioner has committed is definitely criminal in nature and she has no right to continue in service any longer. Further, even if Mr. RG Pradhan has written her application and procured the certificate; that cannot be done without her consent, as such, she cannot escape the liability. 8. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence that the petitioner has committed is definitely criminal in nature and she has no right to continue in service any longer. However, since the Cantonment Board has offered the petitioner to go for compulsory retirement, I have no comment on that but only to direct the Cantonment Board to take necessary action against her as per rule and law of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules. Further, it is observed that the order passed by this Court should not influence the investigation of a Criminal Case bearing Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 202(10) 2011 U/S. 420/468 IPC. 9. With these observations and directions, this instant petition is dismissed and the matter stands disposed of.