S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Chandan Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2344/1994 DATE OF ORDER : 3rd November, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.S.N.Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Government Counsel. 1. Heard learned counsels. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing his termination order dated 22/1/1994 (Annex.7), whereby, in pursuance of order dated 12/1/1994 of the Deputy District Education Officer, he was relieved from service. The petitioner was working as Teacher. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Trivedi submits that the case set up by the respondents in their reply that the petitioner was illegally appointed as teacher on the basis of fake B.Ed.degree alleged to have been obtained by him from one Ruhelkhand University, Bareilly cannot be justified because no inquiry into this S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 2/6 was held before terminating the services of petitioner. He relied upon decision of this Court in case of Subhash Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - 2005 (3) CDR 2388 (Raj.) and decision dated 26/11/2002 delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1352/93 (Smt.Ganeshi Devi Sharma vs. Chief Executive Officer & Anr. In the later decision, this Court held as under: “The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force because the report given by the concerned authority informing the respondent that the certificates, which were sent for verification, are forged one, may be a piece of evidence, cannot be treated as a conclusive proof against. Merely because of these reports also if the respondents had intention to take any action against the petitioner, they should have followed the principles of natural justice and established procedure of law before passing any adverse order against the petitioner. Therefore, principles of natural justice were clearly violated, hence, the order dated 15/16th Feb.,1993 (Annex.14) deserves to be quashed and set aside only on this ground. In view of the above reasons, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15/16th S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 3/6 Feb.,1993 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.” 3. On the side opposite, Mr.Ladrecha submits that an inquiry was initiated by the District Education Officer, Bikaner by writing letter dated 22/6/1993 to the Registrar of Ruhelkhand University, Barelly (U.P.) enquiring upon the mark sheet and status of B.Ed. Degree alleged to have been issued by them to the petitioner under the Roll No.44911 for the year 1989 and at the same point of time a letter was also sent to Superintendent of Police, Bareilly on 24/6/1993. While Ruhelkhand University has not responded to the said letter but on Police inquiry it was found that under Roll No.44911 for the B.Ed examination for the year 1989 the said Roll number belonged to one Kumari Neelam Khandelwal D/o Shri R.K.Khandelwal and not to the petitioner Chandan Singh. 4. Mr.Ladrecha submits that letter dated 17/2/1993 alleged to have been issued by Ruhelkhand University, Barelly in response to letter no. 1732 dated 17/2/1993 of District Education Officer (Primary Education), Bikaner giving details of petitioner's Roll Number and result is not reliable because respondent District Education Officer S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 4/6 has not written letter no.1732 to which the said University could have responded. 5. Be that as it may, it appears that the respondents have been able to collect some material against the petitioner which may prima facie indicate that the degree obtained by the petitioner was not genuine. In this regard, attention of the Court was drawn towards letter dated 26/7/1994 issued by the Deputy Director (Administration), Directorate of Education, Bikaner by which the District Education Officers were directed to file First Information Reports against persons who obtained appointment on the basis of fake degree. Accordingly, FIR was also lodged against the petitioner, however, nothing further happened. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that inquiry deserves to be held in the matter against the petitioner in the matter and unless it could be held in such departmental inquiry that the petitioner is guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of fake degree, his services could not be terminated, and this was in breach of principles of natural justice which were required to be followed in the present case also. S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 5/6 7. To this proposition of law, there cannot be two opinions that even if some adverse material has been collected by the respondent- Education Department against the petitioner, it deserves to be put to him and petitioner ought to have been confronted with such adverse material in an inquiry to be held in the matter, which was not so held. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bikaner to hold an inquiry against the petitioner by confronting the adverse material so far collected against him or which may be collected during the said inquiry and the inquiry report after such inquiry may be furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, in this regard, will appear before the District Education Officer in the first instance on 18/11/2008 and thereafter on the dates to be given by said District Education Officer. It is expected that petitioner will cooperate in the inquiry and if he does not cooperate, the said District Education Officer may proceed ex-parte and complete the inquiry. Said inquiry is directed to be completed within a period of three months. If upon said inquiry the petitioner is found guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of fake degree, this writ petition shall be treated as S.B.C.W.P. NO. 2344/1994 Chandan Singh vs.State & Ors. Order dt:3/11/08 6/6 dismissed. If, however, the petitioner is not found guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of fake degree, he will be entitled to approach this Court by way of fresh writ petition for appropriate directions with regard to his reinstatement and consequential benefits. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.4 baweja/-