- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing show cause notice dated 25.09.2010 and also for quashing order dated 19.02.2011, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services and further for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to the post on which petitioner was working since long i.e. ClassIV post.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as emanated from the averments of the writ application, in a nutshell, is that an advertisement dated 09.01.1999 was published by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of IV grade in Bokaro Collectorate requiring minimum educational qualification of the candidate is Class-VII with knowledge of reading and writing with Devnagri script. In pursuance thereto petitioner alongwith others applied for the said post with requisite documents. The respondent no. 2 vide memo dated 18.03.2005 issued the appointment letter to the petitioner and appointed him on Class-IV post in Bokaro Collectorate. While continuing as such, a show cause was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation that the document which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment specially the School Leaving Certificate in support of Educational Qualification was found to be forged and petitioner was directed to reply to the same within fifteen days, to which, the petitioner responded stating that the school leaving certificate of Class-IX pass submitted by the petitioner is correct and duly certified by the Headmaster of the School but that has not been taken into consideration by the respondent authority and vide letter dated 23.12.2006, an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro Collectorate whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension as the certificate pertaining to the educational qualification was found forge on preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by appointing enquiry officer and vide memo dated 08.02.2007, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner in respect to the forged document submitted at the time of the appointment vide Annexure- 5 to the writ application. The petitioner filed detailed reply after serving of the charge sheet. The petitioner again submitted original certificate before the appropriate authority which was duly considered by the enquiry officer and was found to be genuine and valid, which is evident from the letter of enquiry officer dated 19.08.2008. The inquiry report submitted by inquiry officer has been taken into consideration by the then Deputy Commissioner, who recommended the case of the petitioner and others for medical test for determination of actual date of birth and thereafter to consider the cases so that they can remain in service. The Medical Board was constituted and the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer on 14.11.2008 certified the age of the petitioner 40 to 45 years as on 14.11.2008 as per Annexure 8 and 8/1 to the writ application. It has been submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro being not satisfied with the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, directed to conduct enquiry afresh by appointing another enquiry officer, without any intimation or communication ever been given to the petitioner, nor asked to appear on any date in the proceeding by the second enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that it is evident from second show cause issued to the petitioner that before dismissal from services, show cause has been given to the petitioner on 25.09.2010 and when no reply has been given, then on 25.10.2010 time was granted to file show cause within 21 days. But from the order dated 25.09.2010 it clearly appears that the respondents-authroties were bent upon to dismiss the petitioner from the services in spite of the recommendation made by the enquiry officer for reconsideration of his case. It has been submitted that the basing on the 2nd enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed form services vide memo no. 145 dated 19.02.2011.
(3.) Per-Contra the counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been contended in the counter-affidavit that first inquiry report being vague and inconclusive, second enquiry was given to Executive Magistrate vide letter dated 02.08.2010 since the first enquiry officer had been transferred. The second enquiry officer in course of conducting the enquiry submitted the report vide letter dated 06.10.2010 attaching the report of educational qualification verification report of District Education Officer, Siwan vide letter dated 18.09.2010. The report of District Education Officer, Siwan clearly reveals that the educational qualification certificate of the petitioner is forged as evident from Annexure-B series to the counteraffidavit. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to present his case and was well intimated vide letter dated 09.08.2010 issued by the second enquiry officer vide Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. The report of the second enquiry officer proved that the petitioner had submitted false and fabricated educational qualification certificate. Further the District Education officer's report clearly mentioned that the petitioner had never been admitted in the said school and no such educational qualification certificate had been issued by the school as per Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that Sri Bharat Lal Mahtha and Sri Adhirath Mahtha have not been taken back in the service and no discriminations has been made against the petitioner.;