Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1459 (GAU)

Prasanta Chaudhuri v. State of Nagaland

2025-08-28

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. H.H. Kinimi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Ms. S. Mere, learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitioner from service vide Order dated 21.09.2023 as well as the rejection of the appeal filed thereafter. The petitioner also has sought for a direction that a fresh inquiry be held pertaining to the authenticity of the petitioner’s educational documents. 3. The question as to whether the case set up by the petitioner merits consideration can only be seen from a perusal of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition and the respective pleadings exchanged between the parties. 4. As it would be seen from the perusal of the writ petition that vide Order dated 06.06.2002, the petitioner was initially appointed as an Ad- hoc Hindi Teacher under the establishment of the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide an Order dated 04.06.2007. However, subsequently, on 27.08.2008 the petitioner was again reinstated. The record reveals that the petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.194(K)/2012 seeking regularization of his services. This Court vide an Order dated 05.09.2013 dismissed the said writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner to obtain further clarification/certificate from the affiliated college/university and submit the same to the Education Department. This Court further observed that in the eventuality genuine documents are submitted, the case of the petitioner be considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2007. 5. While the said writ petition being WP(C) No.194(K)/2012 was pending, the Director, Directorate of School Education had sought for certain clarification in respect to the documents submitted by the petitioner from the Principal, Rashtriya Bhasha Hindi Training Institute, Hindi Nagar, Padam Pukhuri, Dimapur on 22.05.2012. The Principal, Rashtriya Bhasha Hindi Training Institute gave a report that the petitioner was a student of the said institute and passed his Parichaya Examination in the year 1997. 6. The Principal, Rashtriya Bhasha Hindi Training Institute gave a report that the petitioner was a student of the said institute and passed his Parichaya Examination in the year 1997. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 05.02.2014, the Principal of Rashtriya Bhasha Hindi College also issued another certificate that the petitioner was a private student of the Institute and had passed his rd Parichaya Examination as a private candidate in February 1997 in 3 Division bearing Roll No. 1431, conducted by the Rashtriya Bhasha Prachar Samiti Wardha, Maharashtra. The petitioner, on the basis of these documents submitted before the respondent authorities, sought for regularization. 7. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 3 vide an Order dated 18.07.2014 appointed two Officers of the Department as Inquiry Officers to physically verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s documents and to clarify as to how the letter dated 22.05.2012 issued by the Principal RBHTI, Dimapur and the letter dated 11.08.2009 issued by RBPS, Hindi Nagar, Wardha are contradictory to each other. Pursuant to the said inquiry conducted, the respondent no. 4 submitted a written reply on 18.08.2014 stating inter alia that upon verification and proper scrutiny of records, it was found that the petitioner was never a student of the Institute and sought for withdrawal of the letter dated 22.05.2012 and the same be treated as cancelled. 8. On the basis thereof, the Inquiry Committee submitted a report on 11.09.2014 stating inter alia that the Hindi related educational documents so submitted by the petitioner were ‘FAKE’. 9. In the meantime, while these inquiry proceedings were going on, a criminal proceeding was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of Thonoknyu PS Case No. 1/2022 under Section 354 /354A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 8 /9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). In view of the criminal proceedings initiated, the petitioner was arrested and kept in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Resultantly, the petitioner was suspended. It is also relevant to take note of that vide Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner was convicted under Section 352 /354D of the INDIAN PENAL CODE by the learned Court of the Special Judge, POCSO, Tuensang. However, applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the petitioner was released on probation for a period of 2 years. However, applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the petitioner was released on probation for a period of 2 years. 10. The records reveal that on 08.06.2023 the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing before the competent authority on 16.06.2023 and to explain the circumstances as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him in terms with the Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1967 (for short, “the Rules of 1967”). The petitioner appeared and submitted his written statement of defense. Subsequent thereto, the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 was passed whereby the petitioner was removed from service by applying Rule 11 of the Rules of 1967 on the ground that the petitioner had furnished counterfeit educational documents to secure his appointment and he was also convicted of crime under Section 352 /354D of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal which was however dismissed. It is under such circumstances the petitioner had approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for setting aside the order of dismissal from service dated 21.09.2023 as well as all consequential orders and further seeking an inquiry in respect to the educational documents of the petitioner. 11. The record reveals that pursuant to the writ petition being filed, this Court issued notice on 09.09.2024 and the official respondents have filed a detailed affidavit on 12.12.2024. In the said affidavit-in-opposition it was stated that the petitioner in order to obtain his appointment had submitted fake educational documents. It is also stated that the petitioner vide communication dated 19.06.2023 had duly admitted that he became aware that the documents were fake during the personal hearing held on 16.06.2023. The report dated 26.06.2023 of the personal hearing, held on 16.06.2023, has been enclosed as Annexure-X to the said affidavit-in-opposition. In addition to that the respondents have duly supported the order of dismissal from service dated 21.09.2023 on the ground that the petitioner was convicted of criminal charges. 12. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the statements made in the writ petition and denying to the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents. 13. In the backdrop of the above, this Court heard Mr. H.H. Kinimi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the statements made in the writ petition and denying to the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents. 13. In the backdrop of the above, this Court heard Mr. H.H. Kinimi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. The submissions were as stated in their respective pleadings, and for the sake of brevity this Court is not repeating the same. 14. During the course of the hearing, this Court inquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner herein had preferred any appeal against the Judgment and Order of conviction under Section 352 /354D, IPC dated 15.05.2023. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that to his information, no appeal has been preferred. 15. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference and/or granting the reliefs as has been sought for by the petitioner. The materials on record show that the petitioner was appointed on 06.06.2022 on ad hoc basis as Hindi Teacher at St. David School Pansovia in the scale of pay. The petitioner sought for regularization of his services, however, on account of there being contradictory documents as observed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in its Order dated 05.09.2013 passed in WP(C) No.194(K)/2012, the petitioner’s request for passing appropriate directions for regularization of the petitioner’s service was declined. The petitioner was however given an opportunity to provide clarification or certificate from an affiliated college/university and the same be submitted to the Education Department. The petitioner admittedly did not provide any fresh certificate or clarification but insisted on the certificate given by the Principal RBHTI vide Letter dated 22.05.2012 and submitted the same staking his claim for regularization. But the materials on record categorically show that the certificate on the basis of which the petitioner claims his rights, i.e. Letter dated 22.05.2012 was withdrawn vide the communication dated 18.08.2014 by the Authority concerned and it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was never a student of RBH College. Additionally, it was also stated that the communication dated 22.05.2012 was issued without proper verification. 16. Additionally, it was also stated that the communication dated 22.05.2012 was issued without proper verification. 16. On the basis of the said document, the Inquiry Officers so appointed by the Respondent No.3 arrived at the opinion as would appear from the contents of Annexure-X of the affidavit-in-opposition that the certificates submitted by the Petitioner were fake. This Court further had perused the Inquiry Report dated 26.06.2023 and from the said Report, it appears that the Petitioner could provide any explanation or justification or any document which would impact the communication dated 18.08.2014. 17. This Court further finds it very pertinent herein to observe that the jurisdiction which this Court would be exercising in respect to the Order of dismissal of service dated 21.09.2023 as well as the Inquiry report dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure-X to the affidavit-in-opposition) is jurisdiction to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Science Vs. Bikartan Das reported in (2023) 16 SCC 462 had categorically observed the contours of the jurisdiction of the Court while exercising the writ in the nature of certiorari. The Supreme Court observed that the Court while exercising the jurisdiction would only look into the decision making process and as to whether the decision making process is of such a nature which is palpably erroneous or suffers from perversity or is without jurisdiction; else the Court would refrain from exercising the jurisdiction. Paragraph Nos. 48-50 being relevant is reproduced herein under. “ 48. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 49. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 50. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.” 18. The principles of law above quoted if applied to the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court is not a fit case for exercise of the jurisdiction to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari. The reasons being that neither the Inquiry Report dated 26.06.2023 nor the dismissal order dated 21.09.2023 appear to be erroneous or suffers from perversity. The exercise of jurisdiction cannot also be said to be illegal or unauthorized. This Court further observes that the consequential orders post the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 also do not call for interference. 19. This Court further takes note of that the petitioner has been convicted of offences under Section 352 /354D of the IPC. The exercise of jurisdiction cannot also be said to be illegal or unauthorized. This Court further observes that the consequential orders post the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 also do not call for interference. 19. This Court further takes note of that the petitioner has been convicted of offences under Section 352 /354D of the IPC. The conviction of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings is also an additional ground for dismissal of service as is mandated under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1967. 20. Consequently, the reasons so assigned in the impugned Order dated 21.09.2023 which is based upon the Inquiry Report dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure-X to the affidavit-in-opposition) in the opinion of this Court does not merit, for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 21. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.