IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15943 of 2001 VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE FATEH NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KURMURHI, P.S.-SIKARAHATTA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SONBARSA, P.S.-CHARPOKHARI IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA. 3. THE ESTABLISHMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR, ARA. 5. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, SIKARAHATTA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 01.09.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate No. I for the respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of Annexure-20 by which the respondent-Collector, on the basis of report of the Officer In-charge of the concerned police station, has held that petitioner is not the son of late Fateh Narayan Singh and, in fact, he is his nephew. Therefore, he has held that appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds on the death of late Fateh Narayan Singh was illegal and the same should be terminated after following due procedure. Subsequent to filing of the writ application consequential orders were issued by the respondent-D.S.E., vide Annexure-21 with I.A. No. 541 of 2002. Hence, the said I.A. was filed for necessary amendments in the writ application for giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said Annexure-21 also. - 2 - When the case was taken up on 30.01.2002, six weeks time was allowed to learned State counsel to file counter affidavit and the operation of the said Annexure-21 was stayed. Since the I.A. was already taken cognizance of by this Court earlier and operation of the consequential orders annexed with the I.A. was stayed, the I.A. is allowed and the same is directed to be treated as part of the writ application. In paragraph 4 of the writ application petitioner has given a genealogy of the family and has contended that his uncle Jagnandan Singh had one son, namely, Umesh Singh and petitioner was the only son of late Fateh Narayan Singh. As such when he was registered in the High School for matriculation examination to be held by the Bihar Secondary Examination Board he was shown as son of late Fateh Narayan Singh in the relevant records and documents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact a large number of documents, namely, matriculation certificate dated 5.7.1978 vide Annexure-1, the registration certificate of I.Sc. of the Magadh University of the year 1978 vide Annexure-2, the Admit card issued by the Magadh University of the year 1984 vide Annexure-3, the transfer certificate of the petitioner vide Annexure-4, the migration certificate vide Annexure-11, the voter list for 1994 Assembly election vide Annexure-12, the Voter I.D. card - 3 - issued by the Election Commission of India vide Annexure-13 show that the petitioner was the son of said late Fateh Narayan Singh. He also submits that before the consolidation authorities the family genealogy was produced and the authorities took the same into account and in the order as contained in Annexure-8, the detailed genealogy was re- produced which also showed that the petitioner was the son of said late Fateh Narayan Singh. It is an admitted fact that late Fateh Narayan Singh was an assistant teacher in a Government School, who died in harness. Therefore petitioner, being his son applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. His application was considered by the authorities and after due enquiry and verification the same was allowed and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School vide Annexure-7 dated 19.07.1986. However, controversies arose with regard to parentage of petitioner when one Gupteshwar Singh filed a suit against the petitioner and his cousin said Umesh Kumar Singh giving description of both the brothers as son of Jagnandan Singh. Upon notice, petitioner as well as his cousin appeared and filed vakalatnama. Subsequently they filed written statement also. However, petitioner did not raise any objection at that stage about his wrong parentage shown in the plaint. It is further contended that when the petitioner - 4 - realized the mistake, he took steps in the suit for correction of the same, but without success. It is submitted that the suit was however dismissed later on. It appears that said Gupteshwar Singh had filed some petition before the respondents also, challenging the parentage of the petitioner and questioning his appointment on compassionate grounds. Upon receipt of the said complaint, petitioner was directed by the D.S.E., vide Annexure-9, to produce his certificate and service-book etc. to verify the parentage of the petitioner and his salary was stopped in the meanwhile. The petitioner produced the same and the D.S.E. upon being satisfied about the correctness of the parentage of the petitioner, passed order, vide Annexure- 10, finding the complaint of said Gupteshwar singh as baseless and directed the payment of salary to the petitioner to be resumed. It appears that said Gupteshwar singh, thereafter, filed a Misc. petition before the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur levelling the same allegation against the petitioner. In view of the complaint of said Gupteshwar Singh, the petitioner was again asked by the respondent D.S.E., vide Annexure-14, to explain the position and also to produce matriculation certificate etc. In response, petitioner submitted his certificate vide Annexure-15. Thereafter, petitioner was also directed to produce all the certificate in - 5 - original vide Annexure-16 which he did vide Annexure-17. Petitioner also obtained a genealogy certificate from the Circle Officer vide Annexure-18 and produced the same before the respondents. However, it appears from Annexure-22 to the said I.A. that while getting the said complaint of Gupteshwar Singh registered as Misc. Case No. 27 of 1999-2000, the Collector had also ordered for an enquiry and report by the local police also. Accordingly the local police submitted a report which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-19 to the writ application. In the said report, without giving any details at all, it was stated that on local enquiry it had transpired that the petitioner was nephew of said late Fateh Narayan Singh. From Annexure-22 it appears that the said case continued for more than two years and the last order shows that the report of the Officer In-charge of the police station was received and the case was placed for orders. It also appears that, after the report of the Officer In-charge was received by the Collector, the impugned order dated 12.10.2001 as contained in Annexure-20 was passed in which, solely on the basis of the said report of the Officer In- charge of the police station, it was held that the petitioner was not the son of late Fateh Narayan Singh and, therefore, his compassionate appointment was illegal. This appears to - 6 - have been communicated to the respondent District Superintendent of Education through the office order of the Collector No. 545 dated 27.10.2001, in compliance to which, the order terminating the services of the petitioner contained in Annexure-21 was passed. From chronology of events, it is clear that at one stage the District Superintendent of Education had enquired into the matter and, after looking to all the certificates and documents produced by the petitioner, found the allegations of said Gupteshwar Singh as baseless and had ordered for payment of the salary of the petitioner to be continued. But the matter was raked up afresh by Gupteshwar Singh before the Collector, Bhojpur giving rise to the said Misc. Case. It is apparent that the Misc. Case was registered by the Collector and continued for more than two years. But apparently at no point of time the petitioner was noticed and was called upon to defend his case and produce documents in the proceeding in his favour to rebut the allegations made by Gupteshwar Singh about his parentage. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had filed vakalatnama in the suit as also written statement without controverting the fact mentioned in the plaint that he was son of said Jagnandan Singh. Therefore, this was an admission on the - 7 - part of the petitioner that he was not son of late Fateh Narayan Singh and, therefore, the conclusion of the respondent Collector on the basis of report of the officer In- charge was correct. However, learned counsel for the state has fairly admitted that after receipt of the report from the officer in-charge or any time before, no notice was issued to the petitioner in the said Misc. Case and the decision was taken against him for terminating his services ex parte and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said vakalatnama and the written statement filed in the suit instituted by said Gupteshwar singh was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner as he could not notice and realize at that time that the mistake committed by said Gupteshwar Singh in his plaint could affect his service career. He also submits that the vakalatnama itself, which has been annexed with the counter affidavit, will show that the same had been filled-up in different hand-writing and not by the petitioner himself. He submits that the vakalatnama also shows that it was filled-up by many defendants together and the petitioner was not active party in getting it filled-up and filed. He also submits that copy of the written statement annexed with the counter affidavit will also show that the petitioner was only a signatory and the active part in filing the written statement was taken by said Umesh Kumar Singh who had certified - 8 - written statement with regard to correctness of the pleadings made therein. He submits that all those show that the leading part in filing the vakalatnama and written statement was taken by said Umesh Kumar Singh, his cousin and the petitioner had signed the document as was required from him by said Umesh Kumar Singh, counsel and the engaged clerk in the case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that although later attempt of the petitioner to get the plaint corrected failed, but as the suit itself was subsequently dismissed, the effect of the said wrong parentage of petitioner mentioned in the plaint stood completely wiped out. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of wrong parentage of petitioner shown in the said plaint may be correct. However, this Court need not go into that issue as it is apparent that the impugned orders were passed by the respondents and the said Misc. Case was decided against the petitioner, solely on the basis of the report of the Officer-incharge, in complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, this Court finds that the entire proceeding before the Collector leading to the passing of the impugned orders contained in Annexure-20 and 21 suffer from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and are unsustainable in law. As a result, the writ application is allowed, - 9 - Annexure-20 and 21 are quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be treated in continuous service and shall be paid his salary etc. in accordance with law. However, it goes without saying that in case the respondents choose to hold a detailed enquiry in the matter they are not precluded from doing so but the same has to be held after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice only. The writ application is allowed thus. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)