TULSI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 28.12.2002, whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the report of the enquiry officer dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure -2) holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct alleged against him.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the respondent -Bihar Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) for conducting the ad hoc examination sanctioned a post of Routine Clerk. On the post so sanctioned, petitioner was appointed as Routine Clerk for a period of fourt months by order dated 5th of July, 1973 (Annexure -1). Later on by order dated 18th of December, 1973 petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on purely temporary basis with a further stipulation that his service can be terminated without any notice. The commission published a gradation list dated 26th of June, 1989 and the petitioners name finds place at SI. No.11 of the list of Junior Selection Grade Assistants. It is relevant here to state that the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment did not claim that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe but in the year 1989 he claimed himself to be belonging to Kharwar caste which is a Scheduled Tribe and by order dated 26.4.1991 (Annexure -9) he was promoted to the post of Section Officer, on a post reserved for a member of the Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) THE conducting officer submitted his report dated 28.12.2001 (Annexure -2) holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. While holding the petitioner guilty, the conducting officer had observed that the certificate given by district administration governs the issue which is based on the State record. He further observed that local district administration had found the petitioner to be belonging to Kahar caste and not Kharwar. On receipt of the aforesaid report the Commission by its letter dated 24.10.2002 (Annexure -16) asked the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service in the light of the finding of misconduct recorded by the conducting officer. Petitioner thereafter asked for a copy of the enquiry report which was made available to him and ultimately he submitted his reply. The Commission on consideration of the report of the conducting officer and the show cause filed by the petitioner passed the impugned order inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service.