IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8920 of 2002 DINESH KUMAR, S/O LATE MATHURA PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-POKHRAIRA, P.O.-GIDHA, P.S.-SARAIYA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR (AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS). ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND MASS EDUCATION, NEW DELHI, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-III. ----------- 3 07.10.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order dated 13.7.2001 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur, annexed as Annexure-16, whereby, after conclusion of the enquiry, and on the basis of enquiry report, service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the quota for scheduled caste candidates on the basis of - 2 - fraud played by him by producing forged certificate showing himself as son of one Mathura Paswan. Petitioner has also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.2.2002 i.e., of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, as contained in Annexure-17, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. It appears that after appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the scheduled caste category there was some complaint against him that he had produced forged certificates with regard to his caste showing himself as son of one Mathura Paswan. In view of the said complaint preliminary enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Education who gave opportunity to the petitioner, examined the documents and submitted his report vide Annexure-9 finding that the allegations against the petitioner were false. However, the matter did not end there and, it appears that, the petitioner was asked to produce original certificates by the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. Since he did not produce the same, petitioner’s salary was stopped by the District Superintendent of Education vide his order dated 16.11.2000 as contained in Annexure-10. The matter was also placed before the Collector, Muzaffarpur. After examining the records he did not find the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur as satisfactory in - 3 - view of the reports of the District Welfare Officer and Sub- Divisional Officer. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice to the District Superintendent of Education as to why he has submitted his report in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the said report of the Deputy Superintendent of Education. It appears that in view of the said communication of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-11, the District Superintendent of Education passed order of suspension of the petitioner vide memo dated 23.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-13 in contemplation of an enquiry against him. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-14 dated 12.2.2001. Annexure-14 shows that three charges were framed against the petitioner and the documents relied upon for framing of the charges were specifically mentioned under each charge. Petitioner was asked to show cause and he has filed his show cause on 25.3.2001 vide Anneuxre-14/1. In his show cause he specifically mentioned that the letter of the Collector shows that some enquiry was held in respect of his caste after the submission of the said report of the Deputy Superintendent of Education, which was behind his back. He stated that neither he was involved in the said enquiry nor he was supplied with the report of the said enquiry and none of the papers relied upon for framing the charges were supplied to him. In his show cause he also specifically mentioned that he - 4 - should be allowed to examine the officers who have submitted report in respect of his not being scheduled caste and belonging to Teli caste. By another letter dated 24.2.2001, vide Annexure-15, petitioner specifically asked from the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur for the documents referred in the charge report in absence of which it was not possible for him to file a reply to the Area Education Officer in the enquiry. However, it appears that Area Education Officer held the enquiry and submitted a report which was placed before the District Education Establishment Committee for consideration. Upon consideration of the matter, the District Education Establishment Committee resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of having obtained his employment on the basis of forged caste certificate. Accordingly, order was issued by the District Superintendent of Education through his memo no. 1448 dated 13.7.2001, as contained in Annexure-16, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated and orders were passed for recovery of the salary received by him. Against the said order of dismissal from the service, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur who considered his appeal and dismissed the same vide Annexure-17 dated 25.2.2002. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits - 5 - that it is apparent from the records that after submission of the preliminary report by the Deputy Superintendent of Education in favour of the petitioner some further enquiries were made on the orders of the Collector, Muzaffarpur by the District Welfare Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer, West Muzaffarpur. In view of reports of such enquiry, the Collector, Muzaffarpur did not accept the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Education and, therefore, fresh enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charges were framed. He submits that in support of three charges framed against the petitioner the respondents specifically referred to documents in the memo of charge which were made the basis for the charges. He submits that those documents which were relied upon by the respondents for initiating proceeding against the petitioner and framing of charges, were not supplied to the petitioner. Referring to the show cause reply of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-14/1 and his subsequent letter as contained in Annexure-15, he submits that the petitioner had made specific demand for those documents referred to in enquiry report and had also asked for full-fledged enquiry by giving him opportunity to examine the authorities who had held enquiry behind his back and whose reports were being relied upon by the respondents for holding him guilty of the charges. He submits in respect of the said demand that neither the documents were supplied to - 6 - the petitioner nor the petitioner was given opportunity to examine the said authorities in respect of enquiry held by them. He also submits that the report of the Area Education Officer was also not supplied to the petitioner. Still relying upon the said reports of the different authorities and other documents referred to in the charge memo and the report of the Area Education Officer, the District Education Establishment Committee resolved to dismiss the petitioner pursuant to which the impugned order (Annexure-16) was issued. By producing a copy of the memo of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, he submits that in his memo of appeal also petitioner had raised the issues but the Appellate Authority also did not consider the same and by a cryptic consideration of the matter dismissed his appeal. He submits that in the circumstances, the entire enquiry is vitiated on account of gross procedural irregularities and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and, therefore, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that upon enquiry it was found that at the time of initial entry in the Government Basic School, Pokhraira, Muzaffarpur, petitioner’s name was entered in admission register with name of his father as Mathura Sah. The relevant pages of the admission register of said school have been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-E - 7 - series to show that in this first document and the father’s name of the petitioner is mentioned as Mathura Sah. Transfer certificate from the said Basic School has also been annexed with the counter affidavit to show that the record of the school contains the name of Mathura Sah as father of the petitioner. He also submits that petitioner had married with the girl of Teli caste which shows that he was not a scheduled caste and was Teli by caste which is supported by the name of his father mentioned in these documents. He submits that subsequent documents produced by the petitioner with the writ application have been manufactured, interpolated to support the claim of the petitioner that he was son of Mathura Paswan and not Mathura Sah. However, in respect of the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that these documents of the Basic School and the reports of the District Welfare Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer were not supplied to him and the petitioner was not given opportunity to examine these officers and the report of the enquiry officer were also not made available to him to enable him to file second show cause, there is no reply in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents is also unable to give a satisfactory reply to these charges of gross procedural irregularities and violation of Principles of Natural Justice committed in the enquiry levelled by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. - 8 - The correct parentage of the petitioner can only decide as to whether the petitioner had obtained his appointment as a scheduled caste candidate genuinely or by playing fraud with the authorities. It is apparent that the records of the said Basic School were relied upon by the respondents as well as reports submitted by the District Welfare Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer for holding the petitioner guilty of playing fraud. However, it is not in dispute that these documents were not supplied to the petitioner with an opportunity to rebut the genuineness of the same. This is also established from the records that the enquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner giving him liberty to file his second show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. The Appellate Authority has also not gone into these issues although the same were raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal annexing certain documents in his favour which all stand ignored by the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, this Court comes to a irresistible conclusion that in the conduct of the enquiry and passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner and in rejection of his appeal, gross procedural irregularities have been committed and the Principles of Natural Justice stand violated. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order of dismissal (Annexure-16) and order of the - 9 - Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner (Anneuxre-17) is unsustainable in law and is fit to be quashed which are hereby quashed. The respondents are given liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh from the stage of framing of charge after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and supplying him all the documents proposed to be relied upon by them in respect of the charges and an opportunity to him to rebut the same by filing his reply and to rebut the said materials in the manner as the petitioner may desire. Thereafter, they will conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders after considering the defence of the petitioner in accordance with law. Since the matter is old one, the respondents are directed to conclude the said enquiry, if they so desire, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and pass appropriate final orders. It is made clear that if the enquiry is not concluded within four months the same shall stand quashed on the next day after expiry of four months and the respondents shall be precluded from proceeding further in the matter against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner will be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that till the final orders are passed by the respondents or till the expiry of the said four months, petitioner shall not be entitled to any payments. - 10 - With the above observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)