STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been preferred challenging, inter alia, the order dated 7th Dec., 2010 passed by the disciplinary authority, the order dated 21st March, 2011 passed by the appellate authority and the memorandum dated 13th Nov., 2014 issued by the respondent no.6 pertaining to the petitioner's application for review.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Station Master, Muri Station, Jharkhand on 19th July, 1996 and while serving under the railways, the petitioner p'icipated in a selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Bidhan Chandra College (hereinafter referred to as the said college) upon availing "no objection" from the competent authority. The petitioner emerged to be successful in the selection process and accordingly to join the new post, he tendered his resignation from railway service and he was released by a letter dated 18th Sept., 2006 issued by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Ranchi Division (hereinafter referred to as DPO). The petitioner joined the post of lecturer on 21st Sept., 2006 and he was confirmed in terms of the provisions of Sec. 5 of the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1975). In the midst of such service a memorandum dated 18th Jan., 2008 was issued by the DPO to the Principal of the said college alleging inter alia that the petitioner was absenting unauthorisedly from his duties with effect from 24th Oct., 2006. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to answer certain queries incorporated in a memorandum dated 5th Feb., 2008 and the same was replied to by the petitioner on 13th Feb., 2008. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 23rd July, 2008 and subsequently by a memorandum dated 29th Aug., 2008 the Principal of the said college was intimated by the DPO that the document dated 18th Sept., 2006 is a fake document and that the petitioner was removed from railway service with effect from 4th March, 2008. Thereafter, the Principal of the said college lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 4th Nov., 2008 and the same was treated as the First Information Report. In the said complaint it was, inter alia, alleged that the letter dated 18th Sept., 2006 is a fake one and that no such letter was issued by the railway authorities and on the basis of the same a case was registered under Sec. 465/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and during pendency of the same the petitioner was placed under suspension by a memorandum dated 15th Nov., 2008 and a charge sheet was issued on 15th Dec., 2008 and on the self-same date an enquiring authority was appointed. Challenging the order of suspension and the charge sheet the petitioner preferred a writ application being W.P. No.7332 (W) of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 22nd June, 2009 observing, inter alia, that if ultimately the petitioner succeeds and is acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he would be free to call upon his employer to review the decision, if in the meantime the college decided to inflict any punishment in the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequent thereto on the basis of an enquiry report dated 13th March, 2009 the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice dated 5th Oct., 2010 and thereafter an order of removal from service was issued by the disciplinary authority on 7th Dec., 2010. Challenging the said order of dismissal a writ application, being W.P. No.23899 (W) of 2010, was preferred but on 5th Jan., 2011 the same was withdrawn for preferring a statutory appeal and thereafter the petitioner filed such statutory appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 21st March, 2011. Subsequent thereto by a judgment dated 28th Aug., 2014 passed in T.R. Case No.46/2012 the petitioner was acquitted and thereafter the petitioner submitted a review application before the disciplinary authority and in reply to the same the petitioner was intimated by a letter dated 13th Nov., 2014 that the petitioner's prayer was considered in the governing body meeting held on 10th Nov., 2014 and a decision was adopted to communicate the same to the concerned authorities.

(3.) Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all the four charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding originate from the alleged fact that the memorandum dated 18th Sept., 2006 is a fake document. Elaborating such submission, he points out that the last eight words of charge I would reveal that it was based on a false declaration being memorandum dated 18th Sept., 2006, the charge II is also relatable the memorandum dated 18th Sept., 2006 inasmuch as the declaration was in fact pertaining to the said memorandum since there was no allegation against the petitioner that he was involved in any part time work, the charge III is also based on the issue as to whether the said memorandum dated 18th Sept., 2006 was a genuine document and charge IV is also specifically related to the said memorandum dated 18th Sept., 2006 and the same was construed by the disciplinary authority to be a fake one.