- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Ranchi pertaining to non acceptance of appointment of the petitioner and for a direction upon the District Education Officer, Giridih for recovery of the amount received by the petitioner from Government funds by instituting case under Public Demand & Recovery Act and for direction commanding upon respondents to allow the allow the petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher and for issuance of appropriate writ/direction commanding upon the respondent 3 to proceed in accordance with observations/directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 05.02.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009.
(2.) Sans details facts as disclosed in the writ application in the nutshell is that, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S.) No. 1933 of 2009 praying therein for direction to accept the joining of petitioner and vide order dated 5.9.2009,the said writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the appointing authority i.e. respondent no. 3, Director, Secondary Education should look into the matter and if he is prima-facie satisfied about the forged nature of the certificates of the petitioner and comes to the prima-facie conclusion that the petitioner has obtained his appointment on the strength of forged certificates he should issue a proper show cause notice to the petitioner setting out the allegations and the materials on which the allegations are being prima-facie accepted. Thereafter, the appointing authority must pass a reasoned order considering the material before it including the petitioner's reply in response to the show-cause notice, recording a finding with reasons as to whether those certificates are forged and whether the appointment has been obtained on the strength of forged certificates. If the findings by the Director on the two issues are against the petitioner. It will be open to the Director to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and in that event any salary paid to the petitioner may also be recovered from the petitioner. The Director will take the decision contemplated above in this order within three months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is present before the Director.
(3.) The petitioner has been appointed by order issued from office of Director, Bihar Secondary Education, Patna vide memo no. 3806-4155 dated 31.3.1983 in pursuance to the letter dated 13.4.2010 issued under the provisions of Right to Information Act the Public Information, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Patna has informed and confirmed that the posting of petitioner was made in High School of Basdiha, Aurangabad and that petitioner was adjusted in Smt. Surat Kuwar High School, Balari, Belaganj, Gaya and at the time of his posting petitioner's educational qualification was trained graduate. On the complaint made by some local people against the petitioner and some other teachers that his certificates of qualifications are forged and they have illegally on strength of money, obtained the appointment letter. The petitioner was verbally asked by the then District Education Officer, Giridh to produce his original certificates, in September 2004 and thereafter the petitioner produced and submitted his original education certificates before the District Education Officer, Giridih but the same was not returned to the petitioner. Petitioner's salary was not paid without any information then petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2407 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2006 with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the authorities. Despite the representation, since the grievances of the petitioner was not mitigated, the petitioner has filed a contempt petitioner Contempt (Civil) No. 436 of 2007 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the arrear of salary has been paid to the petitioner. A charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2008 and the petitioner has submitted his reply. On the basis of the charge-sheet an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report has been submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh on 24.03.2009 and a copy of the said inquiry report was never served upon the petitioner. The charge-sheet has not been proved against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply /charge-sheet before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 10.6.2009. The impugned order dated 11.12.2009 has been passed by the Director, Secondary Education in compliance to the order dated 05.09.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1933 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 3 is unfair and the same has not been passed in due compliance to the order dated 5.9.2009 passed in W.P.(S.) No.1933 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in absence of specific findings with reasons as to whether the appointment has been obtained on the strength of forged certificates or not. Due to lack of conclusive findings the appointment of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled.;