Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 180 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Manesh Chandra Mandal

2016-01-22

D.N.PATEL

body2016
ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This Civil Review Application has been preferred for review of an order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003. This application has been preferred by the original respondent. 2. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent herein(original petitioner) was appointed as a teacher in the year 1962 and was promoted as a Headmaster on 1st June, 1999. He retired on 30th September, 2001 and after his retirement the promotion granted to him as a Headmaster was cancelled vide order dated 5th February, 2003 on the allegation that the Master of Arts Certificate/mark sheet of the respondent herein(original petitioner) was a forged one. 3. On the basis of this allegation the promotion granted with effect from 1st June, 1999 to the original petitioner as a Headmaster was withdrawn after his retirement (date of retirement is 30th September, 2001) on 5th February, 2003 and therefore, W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003 was preferred challenging the order of withdrawal of the promotion dated 5th February, 2003. 4. This court has given adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties in the said writ petition and it has been observed vide order dated 25th June, 2009 (which is sought to be reviewed) that in the criminal proceeding against the original petitioner a summary report was filed by the investigating agency and it was accepted by the trial court and therefore, the very basis for withdrawal of the promotion was found incorrect. On the civil side also neither any departmental enquiry was carried out nor any Notice was given to the original petitioner. Thus, neither on civil nor on criminal side the allegation of forgery could have been established by the original respondents and hence this court, vide order dated 25th June, 2009, quashed and set aside the order dated 5th February, 2003, vide which promotion of the original petitioner was withdrawn. 5. It is contented by the counsel for the applicant herein (original respondent) that in one writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003, the respondent herein (original petitioner) had prayed for promotion from Grade IV to Grade V and Grade VII under the B.A. Trained scale. 5. It is contented by the counsel for the applicant herein (original respondent) that in one writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003, the respondent herein (original petitioner) had prayed for promotion from Grade IV to Grade V and Grade VII under the B.A. Trained scale. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5th February, 2009 and these developments were not pointed out by the respondent herein (original petitioner) when this court passed the Order dated 25th June, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003. This is the major reason for preferring this review application. We are not inclined to accept this contention mainly for the following reason: ^^eqyks ukfLr dqrks 'kk[kk^^ The very basis of the withdrawal of the promotion granted to the respondent herein (original petitioner) after his retirement on 5th February, 2003, viz. forgery, is no more in existence as stated in Order dated 25th June, 2009 as neither on civil side nor on criminal side this allegation has been proved. Bare assertions have no value in the court of law unless the assertions and allegations are proved. As the very basis of the order dated 5th February, 2003, viz. forgery, has not been proved by the State, I see no reason to review the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003. 6. Looking to the order dated 5th February, 2009 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003, it appears that it was the duty of the State to point out correct facts before that court. When the summary report has already been filed by the police that no case of forgery is made out against the respondent, it was the legal and moral duty of the State to point out to this court in W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003 that very basis of withdrawal of the promotion, i.e. forgery is no more in existence. The State has failed to perform that duty and therefore, that order was passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003. The State has failed to perform that duty and therefore, that order was passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2221 of 2003. Now, if the summary report is filed by the police after February, 2009 in the criminal case lodged against the respondent herein (original petitioner), in that eventuality also it is a fresh development and hence there is no illegality or error in the Order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003. Thus, the very fact as to whether the summary report filed by the police in the criminal case against the original petitioner is pre-February, 2009 or post-February, 2009, makes no difference in the present case because the fact remains that the very basis of the withdrawal of the promotion, viz. Forgey, was not in existence when Order dated 25th June, 2009 was passed in W.P.(S) No. 1847 of 2003. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by this court. 7. Moreover, counsel appearing for the State has failed to point out from the memo of this civil review application that criminal case against the original petitioner is going on even today. Counsel appearing for the State has also failed to point out that allegation of fraud and forgery is proved against the respondent either on criminal or civil side. In fact, there is no such allegation in the present review application at all. 8. Hence, there is no substance in this review application and the same is, hereby, dismissed.