Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 546 (JHR)

Bhushan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment By Court:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was dismissed on 7.10.2004 vide order at Annexure-16 under the signature of Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Jharkhand, Respondent no.2 from the post of Teacher in B.I.T. Sindri. The impugned order states that during the course of the departmental inquiry initiated against him, it has been established that the petitioner was engaged in the services of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation from 27.4.1982 to 25.2.1987 on full time basis as an Assistant Godown Manager which he had suppressed at the time of entry in service under the respondent Government. It further indicate that the petitioner in the said period had been found to be performing the duty of a teacher illegally in Magadh Engineering College, Gaya which was taken over by the ordinance of 1986 by the State Government and on the basis of his services rendered in the privately managed Engineering College in the said period, he was absorbed in the Science and Technology Department on the post of Assistant Professor on provisional basis Petitioner, therefore had suppressed the factum of his full time engagement in the Corporation and secured appointment, which shows serious acts of fraud and suppression of facts on the part of the delinquent petitioner for which he has been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. In the writ petition, as would appear the petitioner himself has built up his case that after having obtained the M.Sc. Degree in Mathematics from Magadh University in December 1980, he had joined on 25.11.1981 as 'Teacher Fellow' in the Mathematics Department in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya on a consolidated salary of Rs.600/- per month. Thereafter, on the basis of the notice inviting application issued by the said college petitioner again appeared for interview and got selected, as a result of which a fresh appointment letter dated 21.6.1992 was issued in favour of the petitioner for joining on the post of Assistant Professor. The College however was not in a good financial position and salary for some period of time in 1984 could not be paid to the employees like the petitioner. His services were confirmed w.e.f. 25.6.1983 vide office order dated 12.8.1985(Annexure-4). The Managing Committee of the College, however took a decision to close the College in view of the stringent financial condition. His services were confirmed w.e.f. 25.6.1983 vide office order dated 12.8.1985(Annexure-4). The Managing Committee of the College, however took a decision to close the College in view of the stringent financial condition. Thereafter, on the basis of the decision of the State Government and the provisions of Bihar Private Engineering College (taking over) Ordinance, 1986 the said College was taken over by the State Government. Thereafter, in terms of the said Ordinance names of existing employees were referred for absorption in Government service and the petitioner's name was also recommended to the B.P.S.C. for its approval as he was found fit for the post of Assistant Professor, Mathematics. Thereafter, he was provisionally absorbed in service as a Government servant w.e.f. 31.1.1991 vide memo. 2934 dated 27.9.1993. He was transferred to B.I.T Sindri on 7.10.1994 on the post of Assistant Professor. In the aforesaid background of the case that the petitioner has made out, he was proceeded under a charge sheet dated 17.1.1997(Annexure-9) by the erstwhile Government of Bihar, Department of Science and Technology for the alleged misconduct that the petitioner had claimed teaching experience for the period from 25.11.1981 to 25.6.1982 and from 25.6.1982 to 1993 as an Assistant Professor in the said Magadh Engineering College. The charge sheet alleged that in the said period the petitioner was under the services of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation as an Assistant Godown Manager. The charge sheet also referred to instances of the being placed under suspension by the Corporation and instance of payment of salary for certain period by the Corporation also. In February, 1987 he is said to have resigned from the Corporation which was approved on 5.5.1989. Therefore, when he was engaged in the Corporation for the entire period, he had indulged in undertaking engagement as a Teacher in an illegal manner in the Private Engineering College, which is not permissible for the Government employee. It has also been indicated that after the taking over of the said College enrollment of the student was closed and no student was enrolled after 1986. However, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of teaching experience for the period from 1987 to 1993 as well. He had not followed the procedure for making application to the B.P.S.C for consideration of his appointment to the post of Assistant Professor through proper channel and had appeared in the interview held in 1994. 4. However, the petitioner has claimed the benefit of teaching experience for the period from 1987 to 1993 as well. He had not followed the procedure for making application to the B.P.S.C for consideration of his appointment to the post of Assistant Professor through proper channel and had appeared in the interview held in 1994. 4. The petitioner furnished his reply to the said allegation vide Annexure-11. The reply, however does not dispute that he was not engaged in the Corporation for the period in question. A feeble plea has been taken in the said reply that he was on lien from the Magadh Engineering College during certain period. Upon consideration of the petitioner's reply the Inquiry Officer gave finding that the guilt of the petitioner is fully established. Petitioner was served with show cause notice vide Annexure-12 dated 30.12.1999 enclosing the Inquiry report which is also on record. A perusal of the Inquiry report indicate that each of the petitioner's contention has been dealt with properly by the Inquiry Officer and he has found that the petitioner had fraudulently suppressed his engagement on full time basis in the Corporation and thereby sought to avail the teaching experience of the privately managed Magadh Engineering College, which was in contravention of the conduct of the Government Rule, 1976. The petitioner, apparently has taken a plea that he was not a Government servant during the period in question as he was engaged in the Corporation. However, after the bifurcation of the State once again petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the basis of a reminder to the second show cause notice dated 7.5.2002(Annexure-13). Petitioner, once again furnished his reply inter-alia taking the same plea. Once again petitioner was asked to furnish his reply through last reminder dated 9.8.2004(Annexure-14). The petitioner again served his reply vide Annexure-15. Thereafter, the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed on the establishment of the alleged charges as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the petitioner's show cause. He has also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was engaged in Government service and had suppressed the said fact was not true as the service of the Corporation could not be treated as Government service. He has also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner was engaged in Government service and had suppressed the said fact was not true as the service of the Corporation could not be treated as Government service. It is therefore, argued that the matter be remanded for passing a fresh order after due consideration of the petitioner's show cause. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has however contested the case and supported the impugned order. It has been inter-alia alleged that the petitioner completely suppressed the factum of engagement as Assistant Godown Manager under Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and in the writ petition also he has tried to built up a case that he was teaching in Magadh Engineering College at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that the aforesaid act of the petitioner did amount to serious suppression of vital information which has entailed the punishment of dismissal from service. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The chronology of facts as are borne out from the writ petition as also from the counter affidavit have been narrated in some detail in the earlier part of the judgment. It emerges from the factual matrix of the case that the petitioner admittedly was engaged as full time employee of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation for the period 27.4.1982 to 25.2.1987. This fact apparently has been completely suppressed by the petitioner when his services were being absorbed after taking over of the Magadh Engineering College under the provisions of Ordinance of 1986. As a matter of fact he had claimed benefit of teaching experience in the College during the said period. From perusal of the charge sheet which has also been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, it is apparent that for the said act of misconduct petitioner was proceeded against and he also submitted his reply. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding submitted a detail inquiry report which is enclosed as Annexure-12A to the second show cause issued on 30.12.1999. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry proceeding submitted a detail inquiry report which is enclosed as Annexure-12A to the second show cause issued on 30.12.1999. Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case that he was not engaged in Government service and technically he cannot be said to have violated the Government Conduct Rules, 1976 but it is true that the petitioner did not ever disclose his appointment in the Corporation as full time Godown Manager. Apparently, his full time engagement as Assistant Godown Manager in the Corporation and also engagement in teaching in the Privately Managed Engineering College during the same period would also not have been proper. However, the petitioner did not disclose the aforesaid facts when his services were absorbed under the respondent, Government which is a case of serious misconduct on his part. He was given opportunity to represent by way of show cause notice to which he also replied as evident from Annexure-13 and Annexure 15 to the writ petition. The charges levelled against the petitioner having been established, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly came to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner amounts to serious misconduct and the act of fraudulence on his part warranted imposition of punishment by way of dismissal from service. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons discussed, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.