STATE OF M P AND OTHERS Vs. LALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt.10.4.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.649/2004 (S).

(2.) The respondent was an employee of the appellants. A complaint was received against him that he had submitted false claim of regularisation on the basis of false certificate that he had worked as daily wager. Thereafter departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent for the misconduct that he submitted a forged certificate of daily wager to the effect that he had been working on daily wage basis since 1983. Another charge was levelled against the respondent that he submitted a forged certificate of Class V. In the departmental enquiry, the misconduct was found proved. Consequently, the respondent was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed, that was also dismissed.

(3.) In support of the misconduct, one Mr.L.R.Mourya, Accountant was examined in the departmental enquiry. He deposed that he had verified the record and muster roll from the years 1983 to 1986 of Block Development Office Ghatigaon and found that the respondent did not work as daily wager employee neither his salary was paid. However, he admitted the fact the respondent had worked on daily wage basis from April 1988 to April 1990. A certificate was issued in favour of the respondent by Mr.P.N.Saxena, who had been working at the relevant time as Forest Development Officer. In the aforesaid certificate, it was mentioned that respondent had worked on daily wage basis since 1983 to 1986. Mr.L.R.Mourya admitted the fact that the certificate was signed by the authority and he had verified the signature. The respondent also examined defence witness Mr.Jagdish Batham, who deposed that the respondent had worked on daily wage basis. In regard to the certificate of Class V, the respondent submitted the school leaving certificate issued by Atit Bal Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jahangir Katra, Gwalior. In the aforesaid certificate, it was mentioned that the respondent had studied as a regular student from 1.7.1982 to 8.7.1985 and he was promoted in Class V and thereafter he passed the aforesaid examination with subjects of Hindi, Mathematics, Science and Social Science. The authority rejected the certificate on the ground that in the aforesaid certificate, the language of the respondent was not mentioned, which was Hindi. However, looking to the evidence on record of the case, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly recorded the finding that the findings of the disciplinary authority are perverse because for supporting the misconduct only Mr.L.R.Mourya Accountant was examined, who admitted the fact that the certificate of daily wager was issued by Mr.P.N.Saxena and he had signed the aforesaid certificate. The department did not examine Mr.P.N.Saxena. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent had been working at the resident of Mr.P.N.Saxena. The same facts have been stated by the defence witnesses. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the petition.