Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing/setting aside office order dated 13.4.2010 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated and for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits, including back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and further prayer has been made for declaration that the respondents have no power and authority to terminate the petitioner from the services without inquiry and without following Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Sans details, the facts described in the writ application, in a nutshell is that an advertisement was made on the Notice Board of the office of District Education Officer, Palamau for appointment on Class -IV post in Rajkiyakrit/Project Girls High School and in pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment on the Class -IV post. In response to his application, a call letter/interview letter was given to the petitioner to present himself in the office of DEO, Palamau on 13.8.1990 along with all educational and other certificates, as evident from Annexure -1 to the writ application. The petitioner appeared on the date and time, as scheduled, before the District Education Establishment Committee, Palamau and was selected for Class -IV post to be appointed in Rajkiyakrit/Project Girls High School. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by memo No. 4949 dated 3.9.1990 for joining in Project Girls High School, Bhandaria in the district of Palamau and the petitioner submitted his joining on 22.7.1993 in Rajkiyakrit High School, Chandwa (Palamau). The service book of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner's service was confirmed because on the 6th page in the 2nd Column of the service book, which is meant for the nature of service permanent, the word "sthayee", has been written by the competent authority while granting increment to the petitioner with effect from 5.9.1993. It also appears from the service book that the arrears of increments from 1993 to 1996 has been paid to the petitioner on 4.1.1997. Since, the petitioner was a confirmed permanent employee of the Government of Jharkhand his pay was again revised in view of 6th pay revision as per resolution of the State of Jharkhand contained in resolution No. 660 dated 28.2.2009 and the unrevised pay scale of the petitioner being Rs. 2,550 -3,200/ -, was revised in the pay scale of Rs. 4,440 -7,440/ - at the grade pay of Rs. 1,300/ - and as on 1.1.2006 the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed as Rs. 6,810/ -. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by letter dated 23.1.2001 by District Education Officer, Palamau directing the petitioner to explain as to how he has been appointed, as evident from Annexure -4 to the writ application. The petitioner through his Headmaster explained the position to the District Education Officer, Palamau as evident from letter dated 2.2.2001, vide Annnexure -5 to the writ application. But, to the utter surprise and consternation, after lapse of 20 years suddenly vide impugned order vide office (sic) in memo dated 13.4.2010 has been passed by the respondent No. 4 by terminating the services of the petitioner, as per Annexure -6 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation on 12.6.2010 requesting the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau to set aside the order of termination order dated 13.4.2010 but the representation submitted by the petitioner failed to evoke any response from the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that similarly situated person, namely, Manoj Kumar Upadhyay who moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5510 of 2002 was dismissed by order dated 4.7.2007, vide Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit. A review petition was also filed before this Court by said Manoj Kumar Upadhya being Civil Review No. 68 of 2007, which has also been dismissed by order dated 6.3.2008 as evident from affidavit. In the counter -affidavit, it has further been stated that on the relevant records of Project Girls High School, Bhandariya, such as, attendance register of teachers, service book, bill register, acquaintance roll etc., it has been found that at any point of time, there is no working employee in the name of Sudhir Kumar Mishra. As such, it is crystal clear that he is neither appointed nor has been paid any kind of amount from the school and a copy of the order dated 20.2.2008 has been annexed as Annexure -B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted in the counter -affidavit that the District Education Officer, Palamau and District Education Officer, Latehar submitted joint enquiry report with regard to the concerned offices and schools and the copy of the said enquiry report has also been forwarded to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau Division, Medninagar as evident from Annexure -D to the counter -affidavit. It has further been submitted that the Director (Secondary Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi vide his letter No. 1034 dated 25.3.2010 directed the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau Division, Medininagar to terminate the services of the petitioner, in accordance with, law as evident from Annexure -E to the counter -affidavit. On 7.4.2010, the meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee was held, in which, it has been decided to dismiss the petitioner from services, as on perusal of the issue register, it is crystal clear that the appointment letter of the petitioner is forged one and the copy, of the minutes of the proceeding of the meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee dated 7.4.2010 has been annexed as Annexure -F to the counter -affidavit. Thereafter, an office order, contained in Memo Nos. 273 -277 dated 13.4.2010, has been issued under the signature of the District Education Officer, Latehar, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service with immediate effect and the copy of the said order has been forwarded to the concerned authorities, as evident from Annexure -G to the counter -affidavit. With the aforesaid submissions, it has further been submitted that the impugned order dated 13.4.2010 is legally justified and the same does not warrant interference from this Hon'ble Court and, as such, the writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine. In the supplementary counter -affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it has been submitted that the copy of the letter No. 4949 dated 3.9.1990 which has been traced out and the respondents have been surprised to see the copy of the letter No. 4949/90 dated 3.9.1990 issued by District Education Officer, Palamau which appears to be signed by Bhola Ram. That as a matter of fact there are two letters bearing the same number and date viz. Memo No. 4949 dated 3.9.1990. By one letter the petitioner was appointed and by another letter one Manoj Kumar Upadhayay was appointed, both on the post of peon in Girls High School, Bhandaria, Palamau which was a project school being run by the private managing committee and not by the State Government, a photocopy of the both the letters bearing the same memo No. 4949 dated 3.9.1990 have been enclosed as Annexure -A series to the supplementary counter -affidavit. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid so -called letter of appointment appears to be forged and fabricated and the writer of the letter Sri Bhola Ram, the then District Education Officer, Palamau was also dismissed from services for committing several fraud on different place of posting which includes illegal appointments. Further, it has been submitted that the enquiry reports also reveals that the Principal of the +2 High School has stated that the petitioner was neither appointed in the school nor he was transferred from the school and all the aforementioned facts in the enquiry only establish irregularity, fraud and forgery of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that from the enquiry report, page -7, table of (xii), that in the District Education Officer, Palamau four persons Mr. Indradev Oraon, Mr. Rajdev Oraon, Mr. Seberinius Ekka and Mr. Pramod Kumar were appointed in the year 1986, 1985, 1988 and 1991 and the name of the petitioner is not mentioned and also as per District Education Officer, Garhwa Memo No. 233 dated 26.2.2008, the petitioner never worked at the relevant school and initial appointment/joining is non -existent.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, JC to GP -I, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.;