Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 559 (JHR)

Gopi Chand Rajwar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of termination from service passed on 01.04.2017. 2. The petitioner who participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 201314 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was offered appointment on the condition that during verification of certificates pertaining to educational or other qualifications if any certificate is found forged the appointment shall be liable for termination without notice. In continuation of the decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 24.01.2015, the petitioner was offered appointment on 25.01.2015. On a complaint received indicating two different dates of birth of the petitioner in two different matriculation certificates, an enquiry was instituted in which it was found that in the matriculation certificates issued in the name of the petitioner two different dates of birth, 27.01.1965 as well as 14.08.1972, are recorded. The petitioner was issued a showcause notice and he was directed to appear for his defence on 24.01.2017, however, he did not appear before the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro. Accordingly, in its meeting held on 09.03.2017, the District Education Establishment Committee took a decision to terminate the service of the petitioner. This decision has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 01.04.2017. 3. Contending that an employer on its own cannot take a stand that in view of the admitted facts no prejudice would be caused to an employee if he has not been offered an opportunity of hearing, Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 01.04.2017 is liable for interference by this Court on the ground of breach of rules of natural justice. 4. Mr. Binod Singh, the learned S.C. (L&C) assisted by Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel and Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel appear for the respondents. The learned counsels for the respondents contend that this is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that two different dates of his birth do not appear in two matriculation certificates issued to him. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not thrown challenge to the matriculation certificate/marksheet which would disclose his date of birth as 27.01.1965. This is not the stand of the petitioner that the matriculation certificate/marksheet relied upon by the respondents is a forged one. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not thrown challenge to the matriculation certificate/marksheet which would disclose his date of birth as 27.01.1965. This is not the stand of the petitioner that the matriculation certificate/marksheet relied upon by the respondents is a forged one. On breach of the principles of natural justice it would be pertinent to indicate that the petitioner neither appeared before the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro on the date fixed, that is, on 24.01.2017, nor did he produce any other material justifying two different dates of birth, which, in fact, cannot be justified by the petitioner. The petitioner was offered an opportunity for his defence to which he did not respond, and in the present proceeding also, the petitioner has neither pleaded nor produced any material which would throw a doubt on the decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee to terminate him from service. 6. In the above facts finding no substance in the challenge to the impugned order dated 01.04.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.