Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 492 (JHR)

Lombo Bodra @ Saluka Bodra v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the office order dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure-4) whereby he was removed from service as a constable and also with a prayer to reinstate him in service. 3. Petitioner who was the Homeguard, participated in the Advertisement No. 1/2003 issued by the State Government for selection to the post of constable in the District Force in a number of districts. Admittedly, the petitioner made an application in more than one district i.e. East Singhbhum and West Singhbhum, though under the terms of the advertisement, he could have applied only in one district. However, petitioner was appointed in the district of East Singhbhum on the post of constable and he joined also. However, a show-cause notice was issued on 24.11.2004 upon the petitioner alleging firstly that contrary to the terms of the advertisement, he had applied in two districts and secondly, he had enclosed a homeguard certificate in the name of Saluka Bodra, son of Nandlal Bodra, though petitioner had applied in the name of Lombo Bodra. A criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner with the allegation that he had submitted a certificate in the name of Saluka Bodra while his educational certificate and caste certificate were in the name of Lombo Bodra. Petitioner was thereafter removed from service by District Order No. 2469/04 by holding that he had not submitted his explanation, but upon due verification of the records, the aforesaid act of the petitioner was sufficient for removing him from service. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, he was been removed from service with effect from 26.12.2004 by order passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Annexure-4) dated 29.12.2004. Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in T.R. No. 140/09 (Annexure-5). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, petitioner has represented before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide annexure-6 and thereafter also sent a legal notice vide annexure-7 for reconsideration of his case of reinstatement in service and when that was not responded to, he has approached this Court in the present writ application. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, petitioner has represented before the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide annexure-6 and thereafter also sent a legal notice vide annexure-7 for reconsideration of his case of reinstatement in service and when that was not responded to, he has approached this Court in the present writ application. 5. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit taking the plea that after eight years of removal from service, he has preferred this writ application and the delay has not been properly explained. It is further stated that the petitioner himself while applying under the Advertisement No. 1/2003, had violated its specific terms and conditions and took part in selection test in both districts. However, in course of verification of certificates, documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be forged and amongst the documents filed by the petitioner, two different names were found. It is further submitted that a criminal case was also instituted being Golmuri P.S. Case No. 164/2004, but due to non-examination of the informant and I.O. of the case, petitioner has got an order of acquittal, which however will not affect his removal order passed by the Department. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that acquittal of the petitioner was on the basis of the prosecution failing to establish the very essential fact relating to the forge certificate which was not even produced. It is further submitted that the respondents did not undertake any further inquiry after issuance of show-cause upon him and straightaway imposed an order of punishment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. 8. It appears from the chronology of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner despite conditions contained in the Advertisement No. 1/2003, had not only filled up his form from two different districts, but had also participated in both the districts without disclosing that he has been appearing in either of the districts. This was one of the reasons for issuance of show-cause notice upon him, apart from the fact that certificate of Homeguard produced by him was in the name of another person while educational certificates and caste certificate produced by him were in his name Lombo Bodra. This was one of the reasons for issuance of show-cause notice upon him, apart from the fact that certificate of Homeguard produced by him was in the name of another person while educational certificates and caste certificate produced by him were in his name Lombo Bodra. In the opinion of this Court, this act of the petitioner in producing two different certificates, which upon verification was found to be in the name of two persons, was sufficient for the respondents to remove him from service, as in the Police Force, highest level of honesty, sincerity and integrity is required. It appears from the judgment passed in the criminal case that the prosecution had failed to examine even the I.O. and the informant and not even produced certificate which was said to be forged by the petitioner while seeking appointment. 9. In such circumstances therefore, acquittal of the petitioner by the Trial Court will not be a ground for the respondents to reconsider his case for reinstatement under the respondent department. Once the integrity of the petitioner has been rendered doubtful because of the aforesaid act, in such circumstances, in an Uniform Police Force, respondent Department cannot be compelled to take back the employee who has lost the faith of the employer because of the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order or to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.