GOPAL CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an accused under Sections 467/468/471/419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner was working as a clerk at the time of alleged incidence and regarding the alleged incidence, departmental enquiry was conducted and the same has been decided in his favour.

(3.) Counsel appearing for he State has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that in the year 1987 88, when the appointment process was going on, a candidate namely Neena Kumari Sah was declared successful, but appointment letter was issued in the name of Meena Kumari Sah in stead of said Neena Kumari Sah and the present petitioner was involved in the said offence in issuing appointment letter in favour of Meena Kumari Sah. It is further submitted that aforesaid Nina Kumari Sah has filed a writ application before this Court i.e. W.P. (S) No. 573 of 2006 (Annexure 2). In the said writ application, Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.05.2008 directed the Deputy Commissioner to take decision on the report by passing speaking order and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties i.e. Meena Kumari Sah aned Neena Kumari Sah. It is further submitted that an enquiry was conducted in the light of the order in the aforesaid writ application and it appears from the record that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj dated 16.07.2009, it has been held that the fake appointment letter has been issued in favour of Meena Kumari Sah instead of Neena Kumari Sah and materialsirregularity and discrepancy has been committed by the petitioner along with other co accused persons and thereafter order was passed to terminate the service of Meena Kumari Sah and directed to issue appointment letter to Neena Kumari Sah. Counsel of the State has further submitted that there is specific allegation regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case as such the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case.