Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 97 (JHR)

Govind Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-16

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Writ petitioner is the appellant who has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th August 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1425/2011. 2. Service of the writ petitioner/appellant is said to have been terminated by the respondents by order dated 9th May 2011 which was under challenge in the writ petition. The appellant is said to have joined on the post of Home Guard in Giridih district on 15th February 1984 on the basis of the certificate issued from Primary School, Kurhu Bindo, Giridh. Pursuant to the advertisement for appointment of constable / driver published in the year 2004, the petitioner applied for and was selected vide Annexure-2 dated 21st April 2010. Annexure-2 appears to be a provisional selection order whereunder the appellant was asked to appear with necessary educational / caste / character / residential / home guard certificates in original along with two passport size colour photographs and for re-measurement at Police Centre, Hazaribagh, so that after due verification, necessary action could be taken for his appointment. The instant Memo categorically states that it should not be treated as an appointment letter. However, it is alleged by the appellant that he was terminated from service on the allegation that he had filed a false certificate of Class-VII. It is stated that he came to know through the newspaper publication. The appellant also came to know that an FIR being Town PS Case No. 454/10 was registered against him under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the petitioner, such publication dated 18th June 2010 was initially challenged in the writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ application, he is said to have been terminated from service on 9th May 2011 vide Memo No. 2440 in a departmental proceeding no. 60/10. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant pursued the writ petition inter-alia alleging that the same was issued without any proper opportunity to show-cause and the petitioner was precluded from attending the departmental inquiry because of institution of the FIR against him. 4. 60/10. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant pursued the writ petition inter-alia alleging that the same was issued without any proper opportunity to show-cause and the petitioner was precluded from attending the departmental inquiry because of institution of the FIR against him. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that information were sought for under the RTI in relation to the admission register of the year 1980 of the said school as also results of Class-VII of the year 1982 from the Middle School, Kurhu Bindo where he had cleared Class-VII exam. The information furnished by the DSE, Giridih on 5th May 2012 reveals that the petitioner had cleared the Class-VII exam. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in holding that the petitioner had not cleared Class-VII exam and had obtained service by virtue of forged and fabricated documents. The appellant on earlier occasion, was asked to produce the original covering letter furnished under the Right to Information Act which has been subsequently filed by way of supplementary affidavit. 5. Counsel for the appellant repeatedly harped upon the results enclosed with the copy of the RTI as per which, he has been shown to have been passed in Class-VII exam, though he secured 18 marks in Maths paper and 31 marks in Hindi paper. The appellant therefore has assailed the impugned judgment as being suffering from errors of law as well as of facts. 6. Counsel for the respondents has however opposed the submissions of the appellant. By referring to order of termination contained in Memo dated 9th May 2011 (Annexure-5), it has been submitted that the relevant transfer certificate of the appellant was sent for verification to the Middle School, Kurhu Bindo, Jamua-2, Giridih. From perusal of report submitted by the concerned school, it transpires that such certificate was not issued by the said school and the appellant's name was not found in the register maintained by the said school. There has been difference in the date of birth in the documents submitted with the original application with that of the original certificates. The appellant was given ample opportunity to show-cause, despite which he did not appear. He was also informed through the registered post. There has been difference in the date of birth in the documents submitted with the original application with that of the original certificates. The appellant was given ample opportunity to show-cause, despite which he did not appear. He was also informed through the registered post. In such circumstances when the very basis of seeking appointment on a regular post of constable / driver under the police department, has been found to be forged and fabricated and there is difference in the date of birth in the two documents furnished by the petitioner himself, the petitioner has been rightly terminated from service. It has further been submitted that no appointment letter has been issued in favour of the appellant and Annexure-2 was only a provisional selection letter to appear and produce the original documents for verification before steps could be taken for appointment. Learned Single Judge found these infirmities and the claim for appointment having been based upon forged and fabricated documents, rightly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment, which requires no interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. We find that Annexure-2 dated 21st April 2010 relied upon by the appellant is only a provisional selection letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh asking the appellant to appear with original certificates of education / residential / caste / character / home guard and for re-measurement at the Police Centre, Hazaribagh, so that steps could be taken for his appointment. The instant memo clearly states that it should not be treated as a appointment letter. The petitioner had staked his claim for appointment on the basis of certificate that he had passed the Class-VII exame from Middle School, Kurhobindo Jamua-2, Giridih in the year 1982. It appears from perusal of the termination order dated 9th May 2011 (Annexure-5) that on verification from the Principal of the concerned school, it was found that the claim of the appellant did not tally with the records of the school and the said certificate was not at all issued by the school in question. It appears from perusal of the termination order dated 9th May 2011 (Annexure-5) that on verification from the Principal of the concerned school, it was found that the claim of the appellant did not tally with the records of the school and the said certificate was not at all issued by the school in question. The Superintendent of Police also found that there was clear discrepancy in the date of birth shown in the original application being 18th October 1970 and the original certificate submitted thereafter showing the date of birth of the appellant as 18th October 1968. It further appears that the appellant was given enough opportunity to show-cause, despite which he failed to appear before the conducting officer. He was also served with notice through registered post to submit his reply which he failed to do. 8. The learned Single Judge found that the certificates relied upon by the petitioner, on verification, was found to be fake and fabricated. The said certificate also revealed that the appellant had secured 31 and 18 marks in Hindi and Maths paper respectively and despite which, he claimed to have cleared the Class-VII exam. The discrepancy in the date of birth was also noticed and the learned Single found that the whole process of selection was vitiated by fraud. 9. From perusal of supplementary affidavit containing information furnished under the Right to Information Act to the petitioner / appellant by the DSE, Giridih, it appears that the Headmaster of the school in question on the two specified information sought by the appellant, categorically states that there was no name of the appellant reflected in the results of the year 1982 in Class-VII. Though, in the year 1983, the petitioner has been shown to be passed in Class-VII but there is evidence of cutting in the results. Marks sheet also shows that the appellant had secured 18 marks in Maths and 31 marks in Hindi Language, though he has been shown to be passed. These information furnished under the RTI, also make the case of the appellant doubtful. There was no regular appointment of the appellant, as would be obvious from the reading of Annexure-2. Marks sheet also shows that the appellant had secured 18 marks in Maths and 31 marks in Hindi Language, though he has been shown to be passed. These information furnished under the RTI, also make the case of the appellant doubtful. There was no regular appointment of the appellant, as would be obvious from the reading of Annexure-2. In such circumstances, when the very basis for seeking appointment of the appellant has been found to be vitiated as the certificates produced by him, on verification, have been found to be forged, the respondents cannot be blamed for terminating the appellant / petitioner. The order of termination itself shows that enough opportunity has been given to him to submit his show-cause which he failed to do. Learned Single Judge after having considered all these aspects of the matter, has therefore found no reason to interfere in the writ petition. We therefore do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.