BYASDEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). Nobody appears on behalf of the State.

(2.) Basically the grievance in both the writ petitions is with regard to the service of the original writ petitioner having been terminated on the ground of his training certificate being forged and fabricated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when he had joined service in the year 1973 there was no dispute raised and thereafter in January, 1999 he was paid his salary also, but thereafter it was stopped and in May, 1999, he had submitted an affidavit with regard to validity of his appointment. It was submitted that the father of the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 1622 of 2000 in which, in the counter affidavit, order dated 21.07.2005 was brought on record which was the order dismissing the petitioner from service. In such view of the matter, C.W.J.C. No. 1622 of 2000 was disposed off by order dated 22.07.2005 and the petitioner was permitted to assail the same before the appropriate forum/Court. Such order was assailed by the petitioner in L.P.A. No. 1281 of 2005 but was permitted to be withdrawn with the observation that he may move before the authorities. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W.J.C. No. 13019 of 2005 against his dismissal which was dismissed by order dated 05.11.2006 with the observation that there was an alternative remedy of appeal available to him. Service Appeal No. 07 of 2006 filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, was dismissed by order dated 10.10.2008 and is under appeal in one of the writ petitions. Learned counsel submitted that the dismissal is based without any proper enquiry held, which is impermissible in law. It was submitted that even the report of the Board only states that the roll number and centre mentioned in the certificate, was with regard to another person and the parentage name also differed. Learned counsel submitted that the same is not enough to hold that the certificate was forged and fabricated as the authorities were obliged to disclose the details of the person who was the genuine holder of such certificate in the records of the Board. Learned counsel submitted that after having put in long years of service, the authenticity of the document cannot be challenged, as it is more than 30 years old, in terms of the provisions of Section 90 read with Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For the proposition that without a full fledged departmental enquiry, a permanent employee cannot be dismissed from service, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the Case of Surajmal Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2009 4 PLJR 929. He also replied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 AIR(SC) 101, the relevant being at paragraph no. 199 as also in the case of Shiv Pujan Prasad v. State of UP, 2010 AIR(SC) 256. Learned counsel submitted that though the authorities have removed the original writ petitioner from service only on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2004 2 PLJR 106 (SC) but paragraph no. 4 of the judgment deals with there being an enquiry relating to the case of the person concerned. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 01.05.2009 in L.P.A. No. 232 of 2009 in the case of District Superintendent of Education, Lakhisarai vs. Sri Kabir Mahto to contend that where there was dispute with regard to the certificate produced by petitioner of that case being forged and fabricated, the Court interfered in his termination order on the ground that the appointment was made in the year 1972 and after about a quarter of century, order was passed stating that it was fabricated. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against Sri Kabir Mahto was also of forged certificate. Learned counsel summed up his arguments by submitting that against the petitioner there was no departmental proceeding or enquiry and the criminal case which was instituted has now abated upon his death on 25.05.2014.