Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1430 (JHR)

Ramtahal Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-12-21

S.N.PATHAK

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 316 dated 17.4.2015 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, whereby the service of the petitioner has been dismissed with immediate effect. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the letter no. 346 dated 25.4.2015 issued by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Commercial Division, Latehar, whereby an amount of Rs. 4,10,249/-, paid to the petitioner on account of salary, has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner joined as daily wage worker as Non-Matric Candidate on 1.4.1982 under Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar and thereafter continued to work to the satisfaction of his Controlling Authority (s), wherever the petitioner was posted. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2011, process for regularization of daily wagers was started and the petitioner submitted all the documents, as called for by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar after verification of the documents regularized the service of the petitioner as Non Matric Candidate. Date of birth of the petitioner was shown in the certificate as 1.11.1963 and thereby, he was given age relaxation. Thereafter, the appointing authority issued the appointment letter contained in Memo No. 924 dated 28.11.2011 for the post of Peon to the petitioner and also directed to submit all the original educational certificates at the time of joining. As per the order of the Authority, all the documents were submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. Respondent authorities sent the certificates of the petitioner for verification before the competent authority i.e. Bihar School Examination Board. On verification, the Bihar School Examination Board found that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is fake one, which shows that the petitioner was not a passed candidate, as he stood failed in the matric examination. On the report of the Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, it was found that the petitioner was a failed candidate in the matriculation, as he obtained only 274 marks and his date of birth was mentioned as 1.11.1967. It was observed that the petitioner has intentionally submitted the matric certificate pass to get the benefits of the appointment, as also for consequential benefits. It was observed that the petitioner has intentionally submitted the matric certificate pass to get the benefits of the appointment, as also for consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that he had never submitted the matric pass certificate and the certificate submitted by the petitioner was never sent for verification and only the Xerox copy of the certificate has been sent for verification. On the basis of submission of forged certificate, the petitioner was dismissed from service and he was compelled to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has illegally and arbitrary been dismissed from service without verifying his original certificate. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted the original matriculation certificate and marks sheet, but strangely without verifying the original certificates, only the Xerox copy of the certificates have been sent for verification. Learned counsel submits that earlier the certificates of the petitioner were duly verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar and thereafter, he was issued appointment letter and his service was regularized and as such, the order of dismissal is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned AC to GP-I representing the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that verification report of the Bihar School Examination Board is crystal clear, which shows that a fake matric pass certificate was submitted by the petitioner for getting the appointment and the authorities were kept in dark. It was only after verification it came to light that the petitioner had submitted a fake certificate. It is well settled that no one can continue in service on the basis of fake certificate and draw salary. Learned counsel accordingly justifies the impugned order and submits that no interference is warranted in this writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Admittedly, upon verification, it was found that the petitioner had submitted fake certificate. (ii) Any appointment obtained on the basis of forged documents can be equated with back door entry and such appointee must not be allowed to continue. (ii) Any appointment obtained on the basis of forged documents can be equated with back door entry and such appointee must not be allowed to continue. (iii) In case of State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Assn., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 204 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the back-door entries in public appointment observed as under: “19. … The method of appointment is indeed not calculated to ensure that the meritorious alone will always be appointed or that the appointments made will not be on considerations other than merit. In the absence of guidelines, the appointments may be made purely on personal or political considerations, and be arbitrary. This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their appointment is equally arbitrary. Those who come by the back door have to go by the same door. … From the inception some engagements and contracts may be the product of the operation of the spoils system. There need be no legal anxiety to save them.” (emphasis supplied) (iv) The petitioner was given ample opportunity to justify his case, but he failed to do so and upon verification, it was found that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was fake one. Therefore, rightly the respondent authorities have dismissed him and ordered for lodging a criminal case. (v) The employee, who tries to dupe the employer cannot be considered for a lenient view. Therefore, the order of recovery, pursuant to order dated 25.4.2015 has rightly been passed and no interference is warranted. 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I find no merit in the instant writ application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.