Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 441 (JHR)

Kamala Kant Arun v. State of Jharkhand

2021-06-15

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. 2. Petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer to quash order issued vide Memo No. 912, dated 27.04.2020, issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder he has been terminated from the service just three days prior to his retirement without initiating any departmental proceeding or without issuance of any show-cause. 3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 06.06.1966 and was posted in the office of BEEO, Nawadih, under Bermo Sub-division, Giridih. At the time of joining, the certificates of the petitioner were duly verified by the department and were found to be correct and after issuance of letter no. 54/89, dated 06.04.1989, salary were paid and the services of the petitioner was confirmed in the year 1989. It is specific case of the petitioner that after his appointment, petitioner was transferred to different schools where he worked to the utter satisfaction of the respondent authorities and no complaints were ever made against him neither petitioner was subjected to any departmental proceeding in his entire service career. Petitioner finally superannuated on 30.04.2020 but just four days after his superannuation, i.e. on 04.05.2020, impugned letter of termination was served upon him with a note that he had been terminated from the service vide memo no. 912, dated 27.04.2020. The said order of termination was issued without any show-cause notice or initiation of any departmental proceeding. Throwing challenge to the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vociferously argues that the impugned order of termination is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Admittedly, the said order has been passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or initiation of any departmental proceeding. The impugned order has been issued in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice and as such the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Admittedly, the said order has been passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or initiation of any departmental proceeding. The impugned order has been issued in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice and as such the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has put in 32 years of unblemished service and no finger were raised in the entire service career. However, all of a sudden, his service has been put to an end on flimsy grounds that the certificates submitted by him were not genuine in spite of the fact that the same were duly verified at the time of his joining. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Shrenu Garapati, learned SC-III representing respondents State vehemently opposes contention of Mr. Prashant Pallav and argues that admittedly when the certificates were not found to be genuine, the services of the petitioner has been put to an end. Petitioner had been given ample opportunity to place his case regarding genuineness of his case but he failed to do so and as such impugned order of termination has been issued which needs no interference. Learned SC-III further submits that any employee who has been appointed dehors the rule through a backdoor, cannot be allowed to continue even if he continued for several years illegally. Learned counsel further relies upon the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikash Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 . Learned counsel very fairly concedes that admittedly no departmental proceeding has been initiated and services of the petitioner has been put to an end in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Be that as it may, having heard rival submission of the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have every powers to terminate services of an employee if the certificates/ documents submitted by him are found to be forged and fabricated and not genuine. If an employee does not fulfill requisite qualification or does not have genuine documents/ certificates, is not entitled to continue to the said post. Simultaneously, law is well settled and clear on the point that if livelihood of an employee is snatched, cardinal principles of natural justice has to be followed. If an employee does not fulfill requisite qualification or does not have genuine documents/ certificates, is not entitled to continue to the said post. Simultaneously, law is well settled and clear on the point that if livelihood of an employee is snatched, cardinal principles of natural justice has to be followed. In the instant case, livelihood of the petitioner has been snatched at the fag end of his service without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was a permanent employee and working as a teacher and after 33 long years of service, he could not have been terminated in the manner which has been done in the instant case. 8. The issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Shanker Ghosh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2010 (3) JCR 356 . The Hon'ble Court has observed that if the certificates of the petitioner were found to be forged and fabricated, how he was allowed to continue for long years and as to who were the persons responsible for allowing him to continue for such long years. No steps were ever taken for such long years to find genuineness of the documents and merely at the fag end, petitioner has been harassed. Nothing has been shown by the respondents which could prove that the State had ever take steps to find correctness of the documents filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find it to be a fit case for interference. 9. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, order issued vide Memo No. 912, dated 27.094.2020, issued by the respondent no. 3, is hereby quashed and set aside. Since petitioner has already retired on 30.04.2020, he is entitled for difference of salary and all other consequential benefits in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.