Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 430 (JHR)

Awadh Bihari Ramdas v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-13

ANANDA SEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the inquiry report dated 11.04.2022 as contained in Memo No. 268 and the findings of the report which was conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka passed in Misc. Service Appeal No. 01 of 2006 -07. 2. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. At the relevant time when he was posted in Primary School, Chandi Jhopriya, PS – Barharwa, District – Sahibganj, there was an allegation against him that he was working in two places simultaneously as a Primary Teacher which are Chandi Jhopriya and another is Rampur, Block – Belhar, District – Banka, Bihar. He was also found absent without notice from Barharwa thus he was directed not to sign the attendance register. The District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj instituted an FIR being Barharwa PS Case No. 105 / 1994 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code however vide judgment dated 30 th March, 2001, the learned SDJM, Rajmahal acquitted the petitioner from criminal charges. 3. It is case of the petitioner that there was some other person who was working in Banka and not this petitioner. 4. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, petitioner was dismissed from his services on 23.09.1995. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 9987 of 1995 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court at Patna. The Hon’ble Patna High Court, in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Then the petitioner filed Misc. Service Appeal No. -01 of 2006-07 before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal, Pargana, Dumka against his order of dismissal. Thereafter the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka ultimately vide order dated 26.12.2006 disposed of the Misc. Service Appeal No. 1 /2006-07 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to get the matter enquired with the co-operation of the District Administration of Banka and come to a conclusion whether the person who was working as a Teacher in the Primary School, Rampur, Balher Block was the petitioner or not. Service Appeal No. 1 /2006-07 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to get the matter enquired with the co-operation of the District Administration of Banka and come to a conclusion whether the person who was working as a Teacher in the Primary School, Rampur, Balher Block was the petitioner or not. It was further held that if the person who was working is not the petitioner, then the order of punishment cannot be sustained and if it is found otherwise, then the order of punishment is justified. 5. Be it noted that the petitioner had never challenged the aforesaid order by which the Appellate Authority has directed to re-enquire the matter. 6. In terms of the direction given by the Appellate Authority, the enquiry was conducted and a report has been placed. The petitioner is now challenging the said report and its finding. His main contention is that the report is erroneous and the conclusion arrived at, in the report that petitioner is the same person who was working in the District of Banka, cannot be sustained. For his defence, he has raised many issues and justifications. 7. In my opinion, this Court cannot look into the aforesaid report and re-apprise the findings of the Committee. The petitioner is challenging the findings of the report meaning thereby he is disputing the facts that he is not the person who was working in Banka rather there was some other person. In the enquiry it was found that the petitioner was working in Banka. This is a serious disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in an application under article 226 of the Constitution. 8. So far as the issue of conducting the enquiry is concerned, I am of the opinion that the petitioner accepted the said order. He has not challenged the same though the same was passed in the year 2006. He also participated in the enquiry. Now after participating in the enquiry, if the report is submitted against him, he cannot back track and question the order by which an enquiry was directed to be conducted. 9. Considering what has been held above, I find no ground to allow this writ petition and interfere with the report as there is disputed question of fact. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 11. 9. Considering what has been held above, I find no ground to allow this writ petition and interfere with the report as there is disputed question of fact. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach the Divisional Commissioner which is the Appellate Authority.