SHYAMAPADA PATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dtd. 11/1/2011 passed in the original application being OA 863 of 2010. By the said order, the petitioner's challenge against the order of termination dtd. 7/7/2009 was turned down observing inter alia that the order of termination did not cast any stigma upon the petitioner and the same was an innocuous one.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years as a Mazdoor in Military Engineering Service (hereinafter referred to as MES) by a letter dtd. 1/8/2008 issued by the respondent no. 2. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his educational certificates and reported for duty on 11/8/2008. At the time of appointment, he submitted his class VIII pass certificate issued by the teacher-in-charge of Hotar Adarsha Junior High School, South Parganas wherein his date of birth was recorded as 17/11/1984. Such declaration of age was also supported by an affidavit affirmed on 6/8/2008 by the petitioner's mother and a certificate dtd. 14/8/2008 issued by the Pradhan of Dhamua North Gram Panchayat, South 24 Parganas. The District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas issued a memo dtd. 9/4/2009 to the respondent no.3 stating inter alia that the petitioner's date of birth is 16/3/1974 and during enquiry it was apprehended that the petitioner got admission at Hotar Adarsha Junior High School in class-VII on the strength of a fake transfer certificate and in primary level studies at Ratna Biraj Mohini Junior Basic School his date of birth was also recorded as 16/3/1974. Subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dtd. 30/5/2009 was issued by the respondent no. 2 and communicated vide memo dtd. 17/6/2009 to which the petitioner replied by a letter dtd. 4/7/2009 and thereafter by a memo dtd. 7/7/2009 the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 31/7/2009. In response to a representation dtd. 30/6/2009, the petitioner was communicated a memo dtd. 21/7/2009 issued by the respondent no.3 reiterating the observations of the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas contained in the earlier memo dated 9th of July, 2009. Challenging the denial of the respondents to allow him to join, the petitioner preferred an original application being OA 950 of 2009 which was disposed of by an order dtd. 29/7/2009 directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dtd. 30/6/2009 within a month from the date of communication of the order. The learned Tribunal further directed that till such disposal of the representation there shall be an interim order of status quo as on date. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner preferred the original application being OA 863 of 2010. The orders dtd. 20/8/2009 and 28/8/2009 passed in consideration of the petitioner's representations were duly brought on record and thereafter the said application was heard on contest and dismissed by the order impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that in the attestation form in clause 7(a) the petitioner declared his date of birth to be 17/11/1984 and in clause 10 it was stated that he entered the Hotar Adarsha Junior High School in the year 2000 and left the same in the month of April, 2002 after passing the class VIII examination. Such fact was supported by the certificate issued by the said school. However, in course of a purported enquiry and relying upon documents issued by other schools it was apprehended that the petitioner got admission in the said school in class VII on the strength a fake certificate. The purported enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of mere apprehension, the termination order was issued. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof. Such issue, as urged, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same.