Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1480 (JHR)

Bharat Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-26

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 1770, dated 11.8.2015 (Annexure-4), by which respondent No. 3-District Superintendent Education Officer, Giridih has declared and passed the order that Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner is forged. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of gratuity, commutation of pension, arrears of pension, current pension and also fixation of pension. 3. Fact of the case in brief as has been delineated in the writ petition is that after due process and verification of all educational certificates, petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Barkitand, Circle Gandey on 9.4.1980. After his appointment, petitioner performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and was granted promotion and other benefits. After satisfactory completion of his tenure, petitioner retired from the service on 31.1.2013 while working as Teacher, Utkramit Middle School, Dudhpania Circle, Giridih. 4. It is further alleged that three months prior to date of his retirement, petitioner submitted all his relevant documents in order to get retiral benefits and amount towards GPF, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment. After submission of all required documents, office of the Principal Accountant General, A & E, Jharkhand, Ranchi intimated the petitioner with regard to payment order of his pension, gratuity and commutation of pension. After scrutiny of all the required documents related to service of the petitioner, concerned respondent made payment towards GPF, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment and after verification of service book of petitioner, the Principal Accountant General, A & E, Jharkhand, Ranchi issued letter with regard to payment of gratuity, commutation of pension and current pension of the petitioner. However, in spite of the same, the legitimate dues towards retiral benefits has not been released in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved he moved before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 49 of 2015 which was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 1.4.2015, passed in W.P.(S) No. 49 of 2015, petitioner filed representation. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, passed a reasoned order issued under Memo No. 1770, dated 11.8.2015 (Annexure-4), alleging therein that educational certificate of the petitioner is forged and fabricated. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 1.4.2015, passed in W.P.(S) No. 49 of 2015, petitioner filed representation. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, passed a reasoned order issued under Memo No. 1770, dated 11.8.2015 (Annexure-4), alleging therein that educational certificate of the petitioner is forged and fabricated. Being aggrieved by said under Memo No. 1770, dated 11.8.2015 (Annexure-4), petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 6. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the order dated 11.8.2015, vehemently argues that order has been passed after his retirement. The initial appointment has been challenged by the respondents only after passing of the order dated 1.4.2015 by this Court and also when petitioner has already retired, which is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that respondents authorities in order to deprive the petitioner from his legal rights of getting retiral benefits, has come out with a case that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with law and was based on forged documents and as such impugned order dated 11.8.2015 is fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction may be given to the respondents to pay entire retiral benefits, which has not yet been paid to him. Learned counsel further argues that respondents have made payment of leave encashment, group insurance and amounts of GPF and as such other amount which is due to the petitioner, may be directed to be paid. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel further argues that nothing has been brought on record as to under what circumstances respondents are authorized for withholding the amount of gratuity and pension of the petitioner. 7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 8. Mr. Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel further argues that nothing has been brought on record as to under what circumstances respondents are authorized for withholding the amount of gratuity and pension of the petitioner. 7. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 8. Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that petitioner Is not entitled for any relief as it has come to the knowledge after enquiry that initial appointment of the petitioner was based on forged documents and as such he is not entitled for any benefits in the head of retiral benefits, Learned counsel very fairly submits that though earlier leave encashment, group insurance and amount towards GPF has been paid to the petitioner but as far as other amount are concerned like pension, gratuity and arrears of pension, petitioner is not entitled for the same in view of the fact that his initial appointment was based on forged documents. Learned counsel places heavy reliance in the Judgment rendered in the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Girdharilal Yadav reported in (2004) 6 SCC 325. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that admittedly no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was in service. It was only after his retirement, after enquiry it was found that petitioner's educational certificate were forged and petitioner had illegally been appointed on the basis of those forged certificate and as such his initial appointment was forged. Justifying the impugned order, it has been argued that petitioner is not entitled for the retiral benefits in view of the fact that his appointment itself was not in consonance with rules and appointment is totally based on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration on account of the fact that petitioner worked to the satisfaction of the respondents authorities during the entire service tenure and thereafter superannuated on 31.1.2013, Respondent authorities, after retirement, have paid leave encashment, group insurance and amount of GPF but have withheld gratuity, commutation of pension and arrears of pension. It was after two years' of retirement, that too when petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 49 of 2015, the respondents authorities have come out with an order holding that initial appointment of the petitioner was based on forged and fabricated documents. The reasons for withholding the same is not tenable in the eyes of law as it is only after retirement, without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, amount of gratuity, commuted pension and arrears of pension has been withheld. Admittedly enquiry was held after retirement of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing and without following provisions of law. The relationship of employer employee ceases to exist after retirement of concerned incumbent. In case of loss to the State exchequer, there is a provision for initiation of departmental proceedings and also on the ground of gross misconduct, after notice to the petitioner. The same has not been done. In view thereof also, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent authorities after retirement have come to a finding that initial appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with rules and was based on forged and fabricated documents. Nothing has been brought on record to show that when petitioner continued to be in service based on said documents right from his initial appointment on 9.4.1980 and the same was accepted by the respondents, what steps have been taken against the officials who were responsible for appointment of the petitioner without verifying the said documents. It is impermissible in the eyes of law to verify the documents after two years of retirement, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and on this counts also impugned order is not tenable. 11. In the case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 : [2014 (3) JUR (SC) 260], the Court, while directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay all retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein, has held at paragraph-8 as under: "8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits." In the case of Shankar Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2010) 3 JCR 356 , it has clearly been held that after retirement of an employee, no finding can be derived without affording any opportunity holding initial appointment of the petitioner to be not in consonance with law. Ratio of the said case is fully applicable in the instant case. In view thereof, the impugned order is not tenable and the same is fit to be quashed. 12. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. Impugned order issued under Memo No. 1770, dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure-4), passed by respondent No. 3-District Superintendent Education Officer, Giridih is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. As a sequel of aforesaid rules, observations, guidelines, I, hereby, direct the respondents to pay entire retiral benefits to the petitioner with statutory interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his entitlement till the date of payment. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.