LALIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners were recommended for appointment on the post of Clerk pursuant to the advertisement No. 45/98 published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). They have filed this writ petition praying inter alia to quash letter bearing No. 372 dated 27.4.2004 Annexure-1 whereunder their recommendation for appointment on the post of Clerk has been cancelled on the ground that they resorted to impersonation in the competitive examination conducted pursuant to advertisement No. 45/98. Further prayer in the writ petition is to direct the State respondents to pay the petitioners arrears of salary from February 2004 till the date of this order.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after they became successful in the competitive examination pursuant to advertisement No. 45/98, they were recommended for appointment as Clerk in the Collectorate, Jamui. In the light of the recommendation they were also appointed. While they were discharging their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned, information was received by the Collector, Jamui that petitioners and others secured recommendation from the commission by practising impersonation. In the light of the information received, Jamui P.S. Case No. 49/2004 was lodged against the petitioners for various offences including cheating, forgery impersonation and criminal conspiracy. After lodging of the aforesaid Jamui P.S. Case No. 49 of 2004, petitioners were on the run so as to avoid their arrest in the said case and approached the court for grant of bail in the of arrest. While petitioners were availing the remedy of bail in the event of arrest, charge-sheet dated 4.6.2004 was drawn against them alleging impersonation in the competitive examination and was sent to their home address for being served, as is evident from memo No. 267 dated 4.6.04 Annexure-7. Petitioners having come to learn about the aforesaid charge-sheet, submitted written defence dated 17.6.04 Annexure-8 refuting the allegation that they ever resorted to impersonation for securing success in the competitive examination conducted pursuant to advertisement No. 45/98. Having submitted the written defence they requested the authorities to postpone the proceedings until they secure bail in Jamui P.S. Case 49 of 2004 so as to enable them to effectively defend themselves of the charges contained in charge-sheet dated 4.6.2004. After the request of the petitioners for grant of bail in the event of arrest was refused, they surrendered on 28.11.06 and were released on different dates that is petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 on 26.12.06, 9.1.07 and 4.1.07 respectively. Having obtained bail they again requested the inquiry officer to grant them opportunity to defend themselves of the charges contained in charge-sheet dated 4.6.04. Such opportunity was also not granted and the impugned dismissal order bearing Memo Nos. 521, 519 and 520 dated 22.6.07 Annexures-14, 16 and 15 was passed holding the petitioners guilty of impersonation in the competitive examination conducted by the commission pursuant to advertisement No. 45/98.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned dismissal order holding the petitioners to have resorted to impersonation in the competitive examination by submitting that having received the charge-sheet dated 4.6.04, petitioners submitted their written defence through speed post requesting the enquiry officer that they be given opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding after they secure their release in the criminal case but such opportunity was not granted even after petitioners were released on bail although by then second show cause notice dated 18.8.06 was only issued. Petitioners made attempt to satisfy both the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiry Officer to grant them opportunity to dislodge the charges levelled against them. Such opportunity was not granted for the reasons best known to the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiry Officer. In the circumstances there is no difficulty in concluding that petitioners were not granted adequate opportunity to defend themselves of the charge of impersonation and other allied allegations. Accordingly, I have no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 22.6.07 Annexures-14, 15, 16 which is set aside. Petitioners are directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Jamui, who shall appoint another Inquiry Officer with direction to the petitioners to submit fresh written defence as also direct the Inquiry Officer to conclude the proceeding as early as possible in any case within reasonable time not exceeding three months from the date of appearance of the petitioners before the District Magistrate, Jamui. Salary of the petitioners for the period between February 2004 till the date of this order shall be subject to the result of the inquiry proceeding which shall be conducted in compliance of my order. After conclusion of the fresh inquiry in compliance my order if the authorities are satisfied that the petitioners did not indulge in impersonation in the competitive examination pursuant to advertisement No. 45/98, they shall not rely on the recommendation of the Commission dated 27.4.04 Annexure-1.