BRIJBAI BHATPAHARI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by assailing the orders dtd. 10/9/2014, 8/4/2016, 18/7/2016 and 25/4/2001 (Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner by way of present petition is calling under question the orders whereby, the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service on account of acquittal of the criminal case has been rejected on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the verification form at the time of appointment. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Gidhpuri, Block-Palari, Raipur Division, Raipur, her husband died in harness while working as Assistant Teacher and thereafter the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment. Copy of appointment order dtd. 13/4/1998 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/3, the appointment was granted after due verification of the details provided in the application form. The petitioner joined her duty on 21/4/1998 in pursuance of the appointment order as would be evident from letter dtd. 21/4/1998. Copy of her joining letter is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was falsely implicated in murder case of her husband and was sent to jail, the petitioner being released on bail requested the authority to allow her to rejoin services. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the form seeking compassionate appointment and character certificate was obtained. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice stating that the information provided in application for compassionate appointment was true and correct and nothing had been concealed. In support of her contention, the petitioner referred to the letter dtd. 29/11/1997 issued by the respondent authorities on the address given by the petitioner, which was duly received by her. The petitioner stood convicted in the trial and therefore, it would have been a futile exercise to pursue the matter further till her innocence was proved in the Court of law. Finally, the petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide its order dtd. 22/7/2014. Copy of order dtd. 22/7/2014 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/8. After acquittal, the petitioner moved a representation before respondent No.1 for considering her case for reinstatement before the D.E.O., however, the same was dismissed vide its order dtd. 10/9/2014. The petitioner moved a representation dtd. 20/8/2015 before the higher authorities. The petitioner's representation has been dismissed vide its order dtd. 8/4/2016 followed by the order dtd. 18/7/2016. Copy of the impugned orders dtd. 10/9/2014, 8/4/2016 & 18/7/2016 are filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/1 (colly.). The respondents in the impugned order has taken a new ground that the petitioner had given wrong declaration in the application form and therefore, the impugned orders had been passed, whereas, from perusal of Annexure P/2, it will be evident that the same was passed on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address, because of which, her character could not be verified. The petitioner submitted that the information regarding address was correctly provided in the application form and no concealment was made in application form. After demise of her husband, the petitioner has no source of livelihood. Hence, this present petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are oppressive and arbitrary, the petitioner had furnished correct address in the application form, the petitioner had received communications from the respondent authorities on the address furnished by the petitioner in the application form. The petitioner had not furnished any wrong information or concealed anything in the application form and all the information as asked in the verification form was furnished. The petitioner was completely dependent upon her husband for her survival and in absence of employment, she is finding it difficult to meet her ends. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal case, the initial order dtd. 25/4/2001 was passed on the basis that the petitioner had furnished wrong information of address in the verification form, which is contrary to the records, so the impugned orders dtd. 8/4/2016 & 18/7/2016 (Annexure P/1) and order dtd. 25/4/2001 (Annexure P/2) are liable to be set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all consequential benefits. He places reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,(2024) 1 SCC 175.