RAJ KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as Extra -clerk in the District Registration office at Hazaribagh has been terminated from his service by issue of Annexure -4 i.e., the order dated 15.05.1997. by the District Registrar -cum -Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on the ground that the petitioner and two others made some interpolation in the Registry Book No. 1 at Pages -559 -563 of Deed No. 9146 of the year 1984. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of termination was also dismissed by order as contained in Annexure -8 dated 10.8.2001 by the Inspector General of Registration. The petitioner has sought to challenge these two orders mainly on the ground that after submission of his show cause, neither any fresh notice to show cause was issued to him nor any enquiry was held and therefore, the action of the respondents of terminating the service of the petitioner was bad in law.

(3.) IT was found that the certified copy was prepared by one Madhav Chandra Banerjee, Extra -clerk and the same was read and compared by the petitioner and one Amanat Hussain. Madhav Chandra Banerjee in his show cause admitted that he received a bribe of Rs. 200.00 from Pradip Mahto, who had applied for the certified copy of the document. It was further found that the copyist, comparer and reader were directly involved in the alleged interpolation.