TAPAN KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY this writ application was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the memo of charges contained in letter dated 20.12.1997 (An -nexure -4), the enquiry report dated 7.6.1999 (Annexure 6) in which the Enquiry Officer held that one of the charge against the petitioner was proved and also to quash the letter dated 10.8.1999, i.e., the second show -cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 (Annexure 7) where by the petitioner has been asked to show -cause as to why he should not be punished on the basis of the enquiry report dated 7.6.1999 and for direction that he be promoted to the next higher scale by giving promotion on the basis of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2518/1991 (R), contained in Annexure -3 to this writ application but since during pendency of this writ application an order of punishment of dismissal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the petitioner has also challenged the said order of dismissal from service dated 10.1.2000 by annexing the said order as Annexure -14 to the writ application.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed by the respondents on the post of Overseer on 11.2.1965 and was posted at Patratu. In the gradation list, prepared by the respondents, the name of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 167. The further case of the prosecution is that the Selection Committee by its order dated 29.1.1965 considered that the petitioner belonged to scheduled caste community and, therefore, he was required to be given preferential treatment. One Ram Yatan Paswan, who was also a member of Scheduled Caste and was junior to the petitioner who was placed at SI. No. 217 in the gradation list, i.e., below the petitioner, was given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and then to the post of Executive Engineer by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. He represented the matter but since no relief was given to him and, therefore, he filed a writ application before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court being CWJC No. 2518 of 1991 (R) wherein he prayed for granting him promotion to the next higher post and he also challenged the promotion given to Ram Yatan Paswan respondent No. 4 therein on the ground that he was junior to him but was wrongly given promotion. The said writ application was heard by a Division Bench and was disposed of by judgment dated 21.8.1997 contained in Annexure 3 to this writ application. From perusal of Annexure -3, i.e., the judgment of this Court, it appears that the Division Bench had noticed the fact that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was asked to submit his Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi since he was a permanent resident of Ranchi but he did not produce the said caste certificate and, therefore, his case for promotion could not be considered. It further appears from the said judgment that however, subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by his letter dated 28.2.1990 confirmed that the petitioner belonged to kanjar community and was a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that since he filed a writ application, i.e., CWJC No. 2518/1991 (R) before this Court claiming his promotion which annoyed the officials of the Board and, therefore, with a mala fide intention a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for the following two charges: (1) That he got issued Caste Certificate dated 28.2.1990 from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by misleading him and by making false affidavit on oath by filing an affidavit in order to get promotion. (2) After thorough enquiry it came to the light on 25.11.1997 that the petitioner had submitted the Caste Certificate belonging to the member of Scheduled Caste by filing false affidavit and by giving a wrong residential address in the affidavit and, therefore, the caste certificate was forged one. Accordingly, he, by submitting the forged caste certificate, committed fraud with the Board which was condemnable and, therefore, was an offence punishable under the Indian Oath Act. A copy of charge has been annexed as Annexure -4 to this writ application.