M.Y.EQBAL AND HARI SHANKAR PRASAD JJ. - (1.) THIS appeal directed against the order dated 13.2.2004 passed in WP (S) No. 640 of 2002 whereby where -under the learned single Judge refused on interfere with the order of termination of appellant from service and dismissed the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as extra Clerk in the District Registration Office at Hazaribagh. It was alleged that the appellant along with two others made some interpolation in Book No. 1 at Pages 550 -563 of Deed No. 9146 of the year 1984. On these charges, the order of termination/dismissal was passed. Thereafter petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Registration who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then moved this Court in the aforesaid WP (S) NO. 640 of 2002 and this Court, after recording finding that certified copy was prepared by Madhav Chandra Banerjee. Extra Clerk and the same read and compared by the present appellant and one Amanat Hussain and further that Madhav Chandra Banerjee had also admitted that he received a bribe of Rs. 200.00 from one Pradip Mahto who had applied for the certified copy of the Deed, held that copyist, comparer and reader were directly involved in the alleged interpolation. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere with the order dismissal/termination and dismissal the writ petition. Mr. Sohall Anwar, learned Senior Counsel assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that learned single Judge has not taken note of the fact that no departmental proceeding was initiated, nor second show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of hearing was given before passing the said order of dismissal from service. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad V/s. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in 1993 (4] SCC 727. In the in -slant case. It appears that an inquiry was conducted by the authority and in the inquiry, one of the employees admitted taking bribe of Rs. 200.00 for making interpolation of the documents. It was after holding of inquiry, the authority found that the appellant along with two others involved in commission of the said interpolation.
(3.) IN our opinion, having regard to the facts that the appellant was extra Clerk which is not a permanent post and also regard being had to the facts that before passing the order of dismissal, an inquiry was conducted, we are of the view that the learned single Judge has rightly held that the order of termination will not amount to violation of principle of settled law. This appeal is dismissed.;