KAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner made against the office order dated 20.7.88 whereby he has been discharged from service on certain charges levelled against him.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that he was appointed in 1970 on the post of teacher in Middle School, Dhokhra in the district of Dhanbad. In 1986 respondent No. 5, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad asked the petitioner to produce photocopies of his educational qualification certificates. Accordingly, the petitioner produced certificate issued by the Principal, Primary Teachers Education College of Dumka which was sent for verification. It is alleged that the Bihar School Examination Board, vide letter No. 1323 dated 8.2.88 informed respondent No. 5 that the petitioner appeared in Annual Middle Examination in 1965 and passed the said examination in IIIrd division. However, due to absence of roll number the information with regard to training could not be given. In 1987 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet alleging that on the basis of forged training certificate he got employment. It is contended that without holding enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, he was removed from service vide office order dated 20.7.88.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties it appears that in 1987 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner asking him to submit his show cause/explanation in respect of the charges i.e. the forgery and fabrication in the teachers training certificate on the basis of which he started getting trained pay scale. The petitioner did not submit his show cause/explanation. The respondents, thereafter, got the said certificate verified from the Teachers Training Institute, Dumka and it was reported that no such training was ever given to the petitioner nor any certificate was issued to him and the certificate produced toy the petitioner is a forged one. On the basis of that finding, the petitioner was removed from service in 1988.