ASHOK KUMAR DAS Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has inter alia challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a chargesheet being Memo. No.8-368/NIH/Disp/AKD/2003/65 dated 11th April, 2003.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ application are briefly as follows: Sometime in June, 1991, an advertisement was issued in leading dailies inviting applications for inter alia the post of Associate Professor of Organon of Medicine and Philosophy, Chronic Diseases and Psychology at National Institute of Homoeopathy. The requisite educational qualifications for the said post of Associate Professor were the same as the requisite educational qualifications for the post of Professor. Incumbents for the said post of Associate Professor were required to have 7 years' teaching experience out of which at least 4 years of teaching experience had to be as Assistant Professor/Lecturer in the concerned subject, in a recognized homoeopathy college/institution. The qualifications and experience required for appointment to the post were relaxable at the discretion of the competent authority in case of candidates otherwise well-qualified. By a letter dated 5th July, 1991, the petitioner applied for the said post giving particulars of his educational qualifications and experience. In the column regarding experience, the petitioner stated that the petitioner had been a Lecturer, Bengal Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Repertory and Practice of Medicine since 26th September, 1984 and had also been Guest Lecturer in National Institute of Homoeopathy, Calcutta in Repertory/Organon of Medicine and Physiology since 25th November, 1991. The petitioner duly disclosed his educational qualifications and experience. Enclosed with the aforesaid letter dated 5th July, 1991 were all requisite marksheets and certificates. In response the petitioner received a letter dated 14th November, 1991 requesting the petitioner to submit the enclosed form duly filled in and properly signed so as to reach the office of National Institute of Homoeopathy on or before 30th November, 1991. The petitioner filled in the enclosed form giving particulars of his educational qualifications. The petitioner duly disclosed that the petitioner had completed a one-month Post-Graduate course in Rehabilitation in 1985 and had obtained Master of Science in Physiology from. Calcutta University in 1985/1986. In column 7 the petitioner disclosed that the petitioner had been a Lecturer of Bengal Homoeopathic College from 26th September, 1984 till date of application. The authorities of National Institute of Homoeopathy were thus duly informed of the fact that the petitioner was prosecuting his M.Sc. course from 1984 to 1986. At the same time, the petitioner claimed to have taught at the Bengal Homoeopathic College. The authorities of the National Institute of Homoeopathy could have ascertained how the petitioner prosecuted further studies and taught at the same time. By a letter dated 25th January, 1997 the petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on 20th February, 1992 along with originals of educational certificates and certificates regarding his experience. After lapse of over two years, the petitioner was by a letter dated 19th March, 1994 offered appointment to the said post of Assistant Professor at the National Institute of Homoeopathy. The said letter inter alia provided that if any information furnished by the petitioner was found to be false, the petitioner would be liable to removal from service or such other action that the Government might deem proper. The petitioner accepted the offer of appointment on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said letter. Thereafter, by a letter of appointment dated 14th July, 1994 the petitioner was appointed to the said post. On the same date, that is, 14th July, 1994 the petitioner joined the post. A copy of the joining letter is annexed to the petition. In the meanwhile on 11th July, 1994 a First Information Report was filed against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had succeeded in obtaining employment in the National Institute of Homoeopathy by producing false and fabricated certificate regarding his experience knowing the same to be false and fabricated. Significantly, even after the said FIR was lodged, letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to join.

(3.) It may, therefore, reasonably be deduced that the authorities of the National Institute of Homoeopathy in the meanwhile ascertained that the certificates were not false or fabricated. Alternatively the authorities relaxed the requisite experience having regard to his overall achievements and entrusted the investigation regarding the certificate produced, to the concerned police authorities.