SUDAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th November, 2009 as contained in Annexure-8 whereby the direction was issued to the District Superintendent of Education, Jamui to initiate a proceeding against original writ petitioner now substituted by his legal representatives under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for securing the appointment as School Teacher in the year 1976 on basis of forged training certificate with further direction to conclude the proceedings within three months. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the charge-sheet served on the petitioner as per memo No. 185 dated 3.2.2011 as contained in Annexure-9 whereby proceeding was initiated on the charges of securing appointment on basis of forged training certificate.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the original-writ petitioner now substituted by his widow and two daughters was appointed as School Teacher alongwith others as per order dated 25th March, 1976 as contained in Annexure-1. The name of petitioner stands at sl. No. 16 of the said order. Petitioner (henceforth petitioner is being referred for original-writ petitioner) retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2007. Petitioner was not being paid salary from some time in the year 2004 and as such agitated his grievances by filing writ petition vide CWJC No. 5040 of 2009 disposed of by order dated 21.4.2009 as contained in Annexure-6 directing the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar to enquire as to why without any departmental enquiry or any order of punishment the salary of the petitioner is not being paid and in case there are no order of punishment for withholding the salary, the salary be released that the duty discharged by him if not in dispute. The decision as per Annexure-8 was taken in pursuance to the aforesaid order of this Court. However, no proceeding was initiated as directed by the Principal Secretary to conclude the proceeding within three months. The charge-sheet was, however, served only on 3rd February, 2011 as contained in Annexure-9. it has been contended that initiation of the proceeding in light of Annexure-8 and service of charge-sheet pursuant thereto in terms of Annexure-9 both are absolutely illegally and contrary to the provisions of proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which manifests that proceeding if not initiated during the tenure of service, the proceeding however could be initiated with respect to the event which took place not more than four years before the date of institution of such proceeding. Since admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1976 as per Annexure-1, and as such, event if any for initiating the proceeding was only the date of appointment of petitioner which was 25th March, 1976. The proceeding initiated on 3rd of February, 2011 was completely beyond the purview of provisions for initiating the proceeding under Section 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, and as such, the orders as contained in Annexures-8 & 9 both deserve to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Assistant Counsel to Addl. Advocate General No. 4 appearing for the State submits that since petitioner obtained the appointment on basis of forged training certificate in the year 1976 and continued to serve on such appointment till the date of his superannuation on 31.10.2007, and as such, the event would be a continuing event right from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation. As such, the proceeding was initiated on 3rd February, 2011 that is well within the time indicated in the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and it suffers from no illegality. Learned counsel however submits that after the service of charge-sheet no further progress in the said proceeding has taken place. The other submissions on behalf of the State is that the training certificate was forged has not been denied by the petitioner and it is well settled that if an appointment is obtained on basis of forged document, the incumbent is not entitled to salary.