JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JUVNL. 3. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BSEB now Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the office order no. 1748, dated-16.11.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary (IV), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, Respondent No.- 4 as contained in Annexure-11 by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of respondents and also for quashing the office order no.-1000/Ranchi dated 14.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-13 by which the respondents no.- 3 has been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal without application of mind and without considering the materials available on the record. AND For the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits to the petitioner treating him as regular employee of the Respondents/Board i.e. reinstated employee and also to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. AND/OR For the issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions as to your lordships may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner” Arguments of the Petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, has submitted that on the date of creation of the State of Jharkhand i.e., 15.11.2000, the petitioner was posted at Gumla and prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand, a departmental proceeding was initiated in which the petitioner participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the month of January, 2001. Second show cause dated 20.02.2001 (Annexure-9) was issued to the petitioner by the Authority of the Bihar State Electricity Board to which the petitioner responded vide reply dated 26.02.2001 (Annexure-10) and thereafter as per the counter-affidavit itself, the matter was sent to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi and ultimately the impugned order of punishment as contained in memo No. 5010 dated 16.11.2009 has been passed by the Joint Secretary-IV, Jharkhand State Electricity Board. 6. 6. The learned counsel has raised the following points: - (a) The enquiry has been conducted against the principles of natural justice, in as much as, the petitioner has not been granted sufficient opportunity to examine his defence witness. In support of this submission, the learned counsel refers to the enquiry report annexed with the counter affidavit, and submits that although the petitioner had expressed his desire to produce defence evidence but ultimately the defence evidence was closed on 14.11.2000 and the petitioner has been deprived of producing defence evidence. (b) There is non-consideration of material facts by the enquiry officer. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the enquiry report, and submits that the enquiry officer was of the view that further investigation was required. He submits that no further investigation was done and enquiry report was submitted against the petitioner. (c) Jharkhand having been created on 15.11.2000 and all the subsequent proceedings were to be conducted by the Authority in the State of Jharkhand as admittedly the petitioner was posted in the District of Gumla on the date of bifurcation. Therefore, all proceedings including further enquiry by another officer were to be undertaken by an authority to be appointed by the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submits that in view of the jurisdictional point, the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment is vitiated and is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 JLJR 697 (High Court) (State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and another) to submit that it has been held that after bifurcation of the then State of Bihar, it is only the competent Authority in the successor State who has the power and jurisdiction to initiate action and pass orders and this is irrespective of the accrual of the cause of action at any point of time before the appointed date and place where such cause of action occurred. The learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner was placed within the State of Jharkhand on the date of bifurcation and therefore the entire proceedings including the order of punishment are vitiated. The learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner was placed within the State of Jharkhand on the date of bifurcation and therefore the entire proceedings including the order of punishment are vitiated. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner is in connection with the government employee of the State of Bihar/State of Jharkhand. It is also not in dispute that so far as the respondents JSEB/BSEB or their successors are concerned, the bifurcation between them for the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand had taken place only with effect from 01.04.2004. (d) The learned counsel has lastly raised another point to submit that as per the order of promotion, as contained in Annexure-4 to the present writ petition, it was clearly mentioned that in case of any discrepancy in educational certificate, or for any reason it is felt to cancel the appointment, such appointment on the post will be cancelled. He submits that even if it is assumed, though not admitted, that the petitioner had submitted a forged matriculation certificate, then also at best the order of promotion could be cancelled and the petitioner was to be reverted back to his original post. The learned counsel has also referred to a judgment reported in (2000) 10 SCC 179 (Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. versus Y.S. Shetty and Others) to submit that conditions of appointment letter is binding and therefore the petitioner ought to have been reverted to the original post. He refers to para-no. 6 and 8 of the said judgment. He submits that on the face of the order of promotion, the order of dismissal of the petitioner on the basis of allegations leveled against the petitioner is perverse and is fit to be set aside. (e) The learned counsel has further referred to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit to submit that details of educational qualification were apparently filled up by another person and not by the petitioner and the petitioner was merely a signatory to the said form and therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for submitting a forged matriculation certificate. (f) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authorities and accordingly the impugned orders are perverse and are fit to be set aside. (f) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authorities and accordingly the impugned orders are perverse and are fit to be set aside. Arguments of the Respondents 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was charged with submitting a forged matriculation certificate. The departmental proceeding was initiated. The petitioner had participated in the departmental proceedings and in spite of repeated opportunities granted to the petitioner to produce defence witness, opportunity was not availed and the said opportunity was ultimately closed on 14.11.2000 and thereafter enquiry report was submitted in the month of January, 2001. The learned counsel also submits that as per the enquiry report, although it was mentioned that it required further investigation in order to find out as to whether the signed form had the handwriting of the petitioner or someone else, but the petitioner could not escape from responsibility that he had applied for the post of SBO Grade-II by submitting forged marks sheet of matriculation certificate for getting appointment. The charge was proved against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings. Thereafter the second show cause was issued to the petitioner by Bihar State Electricity Board which continued to operate in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand even after 15.11.2000, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply as contained in Annexure-10 of the writ petition by simply stating that the petitioner had already informed the department that he is non-matric and therefore he may be reverted back to the original post. The learned counsel submits that after the bifurcation of Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) and Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB) w.e.f. 01.04.2004, the matter for taking a final decision on the second show cause filed by the petitioner was duly forwarded to the corresponding authority of JSEB who passed the impugned order dated 16.11.2009. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that against the order of punishment dated 16.11.2009, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, as contained in Annexure-12 and the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-13. 9. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that against the order of punishment dated 16.11.2009, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, as contained in Annexure-12 and the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-13. 9. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner having submitted a forged matriculation certificate, cannot run away from the liability of submission of a forged certificate and the letter of appointment in connection with discrepancy in educational certificate will not cover a situation of submission of a forged certificate. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has admitted that he has no educational qualification for the promotional post, but he had submitted his application accompanied with a forged matriculation certificate. 10. The learned counsel submits that there has been no violation with regard to the procedure of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and considering the limited scope of interference in the departmental proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Findings of this Court 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage as unskilled khalasi. Subsequently, he was regularized on the said post much prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand. Certain communications were issued as back as in the year 1982 by the authorities of the then Bihar State Electricity Board that unskilled Khalasi deputed in power sub-station may be engaged as trainee for SBO (Switch Board Operator) for which no extra wages will be given to them and they will be given preference at the time of appointment of SBO. Consequently, the petitioner was deputed as SBO in electric sub-station, Amba with effect from 03.12.1982 and he completed his training and certificate to that effect was also issued as contained in Annexure-3. The then Bihar State Electricity Board invited application from eligible candidates for considering their candidature for appointment/promotion as SBO. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his application. The petitioner was selected for appointment on temporary basis on the post of SBO with a condition that in case of any discrepancy in educational certificate or for any reason, it is felt to cancel appointment, the appointment on the post will be cancelled. The letter of appointment is dated 11.12.1984 as contained in Annexure- 4. 12. The petitioner was selected for appointment on temporary basis on the post of SBO with a condition that in case of any discrepancy in educational certificate or for any reason, it is felt to cancel appointment, the appointment on the post will be cancelled. The letter of appointment is dated 11.12.1984 as contained in Annexure- 4. 12. In the year 1996, the petitioner was asked to submit his educational qualification certificate to which the petitioner responded and as per para 16 of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that he did not have any educational qualification, but he was appointed on the basis of his experience and training as Switch Board Operator. Ultimately, the petitioner was put under suspension on the ground that he had obtained promotion/appointment on the basis of fake certificate. The order of suspension dated 08.06.1998 is contained in Annexure- 6. 13. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the then BSEB vide office order no. 2929 dated 10.07.1998. The petitioner was also served with a charge-sheet by which allegation was made that the petitioner had obtained appointment on the post of Switch Board Operator on the basis of fake certificate. The petitioner was served with letter dated 05.08.1998 from the enquiry officer. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and reiterated that the petitioner had submitted his application for appointment on the post of Switch Board Operator on the basis of his past experience and he had not submitted any matriculation certificate and no matriculation certificate was demanded. The petitioner had also stated that he had himself brought the entire facts before the Electrical Superintending Engineer pursuant to letter dated 03.12.1996 whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his educational certificate. The petitioner had also stated that he had himself brought the entire facts before the Electrical Superintending Engineer pursuant to letter dated 03.12.1996 whereby the petitioner was asked to submit his educational certificate. The petitioner had specifically stated in para 7 of his show-cause reply as under: “That the petitioner has not given any mark-sheet of Matriculation before the authority concerned and if it is found it was done by some other people for the reason best known to him otherwise there is no reason for the petitioner to give details reply of letter No.- 1336 dated 3.12.96 issued by Electric Superintending Engineer Gaya (west).” It is important to note that the reply to the letter dated 03.12.1996 directing the petitioner to submit his educational certificate is not on record although a statement has been made in para 16 that the petitioner had submitted a reply on 25.01.1997 stating that he had no educational qualification and was appointed on the basis of his experience and training as Switch Board Operator. In response to para 16 of the writ petition, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 in their counter-affidavit have stated that the same are matters of record. 14. The inquiry officer submitted his report vide covering letter dated 02.01.2001 (Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit). The inquiry officer recorded a finding that the petitioner had full knowledge that he had applied for the post of SBO Grade-II by forging marks sheet of matriculation certificate and therefore, the charge levelled against the petitioner was found proved beyond reasonable doubt. 15. It is not in dispute that the defence evidence was closed on 14.11.2000 and the State of Jharkhand was created on 15.11.2000. It is further not in dispute that in spite of creation of State of Jharkhand, the Bihar State Electricity Board continued to function for the entire combined area of Jharkhand and Bihar. It is further not in dispute that the bifurcation between the area of operation of Bihar State Electricity Board and Jharkhand State Electricity Board had taken place with effect from 01.04.2004. 16. It is further not in dispute that the bifurcation between the area of operation of Bihar State Electricity Board and Jharkhand State Electricity Board had taken place with effect from 01.04.2004. 16. The petitioner was issued second show-cause proposing the punishment of dismissal vide letter dated 20.02.2001 as contained in Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit to which the petitioner filed his reply dated 26.02.2001 stating that the petitioner had furnished complete information prior to initiation of departmental proceeding that he is a non-matriculate and requested the authority that he may be permitted to continue on the post he was holding prior to his appointment by promotion as he does not have the required qualification to work on the promoted post. 17. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 16.11.2009 was passed by the Joint Secretary-IV of Jharkhand State Electricity Board by recording that the Joint Secretary of Bihar State Electricity Board vide memo no. 376 dated 20.02.2001 had proposed dismissal of the services of the petitioner and the petitioner, in his second show-cause reply, did not mention anything new and in view of the admitted position that the petitioner was non-matriculate, the proposed punishment was confirmed and the petitioner was dismissed from service. 18. The petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority i.e. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ultimately, vide the other impugned order contained in Memo No. 1363 dated 14.08.2010, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. From perusal of the appellate order, it is apparent that it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was non-matriculate, but the petitioner had submitted document to show that he had passed matriculation in third division and had obtained appointment by promotion by playing fraud. Accordingly, it was held that the appointment of the petitioner by promotion is illegal and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 19. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as recorded in paragraph 5 in the submissions of the petitioner are considered as follows: (I) Point no. (a) -So far as the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it appears from the inquiry report that after the witnesses of BSEB were examined, the defence was asked as to whether he would like to produce any defence witness, to which the petitioner replied in affirmative. (a) -So far as the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it appears from the inquiry report that after the witnesses of BSEB were examined, the defence was asked as to whether he would like to produce any defence witness, to which the petitioner replied in affirmative. However, the petitioner did not submit the name of defence witnesses at the time of submission of written statement and therefore, 24.11.1999 was fixed for deposition of defence witness. On 24.11.1999, the petitioner submitted a petition that his defence witness Sri Ramadhar Yadav was not present and requested for another date which was fixed on 24.12.1999. On 24.12.1999, the advocate of the petitioner had submitted that due to lack of communication, the petitioner was not present in the departmental proceeding on that day. However, the petitioner appeared along with defence witness on 14.02.2000, but the presenting officer was absent. On the next date, i.e. 11.04.2000, neither the petitioner nor the defence witness appeared in the inquiry proceedings and the petitioner absented from the departmental proceedings on 22.07.2000 also. It was also mentioned in the inquiry report that on 13.05.2000 the petitioner was present along with his defence witness, but his advocate categorically denied to examine the defence witness and prayed for adjournment. Subsequently, the petitioner started absenting himself from the departmental proceeding and ultimately, the petitioner was intimated that if he does not appear on 14.11.2000 along with his defence witness, his evidence will be closed. It has also been recorded in the inquiry report that the petitioner did not appear on 14.11.2000 along with defence witness and therefore, the evidence of defence witness was closed and both the parties were advised to submit their written argument by 30.12.2000. The petitioner had sent a petition intimating that he was sick, but no medical certificate was enclosed and therefore, the evidence of defence was closed. However, the petitioner had submitted his written argument on 04.12.2000 and the prosecution also submitted its written argument on 08.12.2000 which were duly considered in the inquiry report. Thus, this Court finds that there is elaborate discussion regarding the repeated opportunities having been granted to the petitioner to produce his defence witness. However, the petitioner had submitted his written argument on 04.12.2000 and the prosecution also submitted its written argument on 08.12.2000 which were duly considered in the inquiry report. Thus, this Court finds that there is elaborate discussion regarding the repeated opportunities having been granted to the petitioner to produce his defence witness. But, on account of acts/omissions on the part of the petitioner on most of the dates which were fixed before the inquiry officer, the defence witness could not be examined and even on 14.11.2000 which was fixed for production of defence witness by way of last indulgence, the petitioner ultimately did not avail of the opportunity and the defence evidence was closed on 14.11.2000. Thus, this Court finds that enough opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine the defence witness, but the petitioner did not avail of the same and accordingly, the petitioner cannot complain about any violation of principles of natural justice. (II) Point no. (b) and (e) –It has been argued that the enquiry officer submitted his report in haste although it has been recorded in the enquiry report itself that the matter requires further investigation. The operative portion of the finding of the inquiry officer is as follows: “From the perusal of charge-sheet, memo of evidence, examination-in-chief and subsequent cross-examination of only prosecution witness Sri J. P. Mehta, prosecution exhibit alongwith its enclosure and written argument of both the sides I find that the proceedee applied for the post of S.B.O. Grade-II in prescribed format stating therein that he is a matriculate and he passed the same from School Examination Board in 3rd division. The proceedee has tried to escape from the responsibility by mere submission that the then Head Clerk Sri Surendra Prasad got his signature on the prescribed form and therefore, the proceedee has accepted that he signed the form duly filled in. He has further submitted that the signature of Sri Sheo Shankar Das available on the alleged marksheet is in the same handwriting in which the form has been filled in which was in the hand of then Head Clerk Sri Surendra Prasad. Though this matter needs further investigation but the proceedee cannot escape from the responsibility that he had applied for the post of S.B.O. Grade-II by submitting forged marksheet of matriculation certificate for getting appointment to the post of S.B.O. Grade-II. Though this matter needs further investigation but the proceedee cannot escape from the responsibility that he had applied for the post of S.B.O. Grade-II by submitting forged marksheet of matriculation certificate for getting appointment to the post of S.B.O. Grade-II. The role of Sri Surendra Prasad needs to be examined but it was in the full knowledge of the proceedee that he had applied for the post of S.B.O. Grade-II by forging marksheet of matriculation certificate and , therefore, the charge levelled against the proceedee has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Findings: Charge against proceedee- Held proved.” The findings of the inquiry officer clearly records that the petitioner had applied for the post of SBO Grade-II in prescribed format stating that he is matriculate and he had passed the same from school examination board in third division. The enquiry officer recorded that the petitioner tried to escape from the responsibility of filing a forged matriculation certificate by submitting that the form has been filled and the then Head Clerk Sri Surendra Prasad has got his signature on the prescribed form and the signature on the matriculation certificate of Sheo Shankar Das was in the same writing as that of the person filling the form. In this background, it was observed by the enquiry officer that role of Head Clerk Sri Surendra Prasad needs further investigation but on account of the stand of the petitioner, it was not in dispute that the petitioner had accepted that he had signed the form. Thus, inquiry officer was of the view that though the matter needed further investigation, but the petitioner could not escape from his responsibility that he had applied for the post of SBO Grade –II by submitting forged marks sheet of matriculation for getting appointment to the post of SBO Grade-II. The inquiry officer also recorded that it was in the full knowledge of the petitioner that he had applied for the post by forging markssheet of matriculation certificate and therefore, the allegation against the petitioner was found to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Upon going through the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officer, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer with regards to use of forged matriculation certificate with the knowledge of the petitioner for the purposes of obtaining promotion. (III) Point no. Upon going through the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officer, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer with regards to use of forged matriculation certificate with the knowledge of the petitioner for the purposes of obtaining promotion. (III) Point no. (c)-So far as the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner in is concerned, this Court finds that till the stage of issuance of second show-cause, the then Bihar State Electricity Board was operating in the combined area of Bihar and Jharkhand and therefore, even if the petitioner was posted within the State of Jharkhand in the district of Gumla on the date of bifurcation of the State i.e. on 15.11.2000, the same had no bearing so far as the employer of the petitioner i.e. Bihar State Electricity Board is concerned. It is not in dispute that Bihar State Electricity Board and Jharkhand State Electricity Board were bifurcated only with effect from 01.04.2004. The judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2002) 1 JLJR 697 (Supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the said judgment related to employees under the State of Bihar/Jharkhand and those employees were working under the concerned State of Bihar /State of Jharkhand right from the date of bifurcation of the State i.e., 15.11.2000. However, this is not the situation so far as the employees of Bihar State Electricity Board are concerned as the Board was bifurcated only with effect from 01.04.2004. Accordingly, the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner is misconceived which is accordingly rejected. (IV) Point no. (d)-So far as the argument of the petitioner that, as per the letter of appointment by promotion, in case of any discrepancy in educational certificate the appointment will stand cancelled and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been reverted back to his original post, is concerned, this argument is also devoid of any merits. The petitioner was charged with gross misconduct and indiscipline as per the standing order of BSEB by virtue of producing and using forged matriculation certificate for the purposes of obtaining employment by promotion. The consequence of such a serious charge is dismissal and not reversion. The letter of appointment by promotion mentioned about consequences of any discrepancy in educational certificate which is entirely different from submitting a forged educational certificate. The consequence of such a serious charge is dismissal and not reversion. The letter of appointment by promotion mentioned about consequences of any discrepancy in educational certificate which is entirely different from submitting a forged educational certificate. In the matter of submission of forged educational certificate, the same comes within the realm of fraud and the same would call for an appropriate punishment arising out of gross misconduct of fraud and misrepresentation and the consequent punishment will not remain confined to taking away the promotion by reversion but appropriate punishment arising out of fraud and misrepresentation for which the petitioner was charged. With reference to the judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in (2000) 10 SCC 179 (Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. versus Y.S. Shetty and Others) (supra), there is no doubt that the terms of appointment are binding on the parties, but this Court is of the considered view that violation of terms of employment in the matter of discrepancy in educational qualification is totally different from obtaining the appointment/promotion by committing fraud and misrepresentation. In view of the aforesaid findings of gross misconduct by the petitioner, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned punishment imposed upon the petitioner upon proved charges. 20. In view of the limited scope of interference in the matters of disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. All the points raised by the petitioner having been decided against the petitioner, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 22. Interim order, if any, is vacated.