SHIBLAL RAI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner entered in the service on 23.11.1985 as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Hesla, Bagodar as per appointment letter at Annexure-6, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih. The appointment letter was issued on the basis of the decision of an Appointment Committee. The appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of a certificate of Madhyama, issued by the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University vide Annexure-2 dated 16.1.1990. The petitioner is said to have passed the said examination which is equivalent to Matriculation Examination in the year 1973 and his date of birth was mentioned as 26.6.1954. The petitioner also appeared in the Teachers Training Examination in the Session 1975-77 conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. The mark sheet thereof is enclosed as Annexure-5 dated 29.6.1989. He is also said to have passed the Intermediate of Arts Examination from the Ranchi University conducted in June 1975 as per the certificate at Annexure-16 to his supplementary affidavit. The said certificate of Intermediate of Arts and the mark sheet were filed pursuant to an order dated 31.10.2012 passed in the instant case. The petitioner continued to serve as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was served with a notice to produce certain papers relating to his appointment and educational qualification through Letter No. 99 dated 16.6.2007 (Annexure-8), issued by the Range Education Officer, Dhanwar, Giridih. The petitioner was asked to submit his show cause reply through the letter dated 18.9.2009 on the allegation that he has a different date of birth i.e. 20.1.1940 as shown in the Matriculation examination conducted in the year 1960-61 in Rajya Samposhit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Dhanwar, Giridh. It appears that an allegation was made by one Rohit Kumar Rai, son of Late Gayo Rai of Village Karmatand, P.S-Doranda, Dhanwar, Giridih against the petitioner addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih that the petitioner had misled the authorities in showing his date of birth as 20.6.1954 and got appointment as an Assistant Teacher, whereas from the records of the Government Rajya Samposhit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Dhanwar, Giridh, it would appear that the petitioner had appeared in the Matriculation examination in the year 1961-62 and had passed the same in third division, where his date of birth was mentioned as 20.1.1940. The petitioner furnished his show cause reply as per Annexure-9 to the writ petition before the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih on 7.10.2009. The petitioner took various pleas such as (i) that the certificate of Madhyama issued on 16.1.1990 shows that he had passed the said exam in 1973, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 26.6.1954. (ii) He obtained the Intermediate of Arts certificate from Ranchi University in June 1975. (iii) He obtained the Teachers Training Certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board on 29.6.1989 showing that he had passed this examination in 1977. All the testimonials including the educational certificates, which was produced at the time of appointment was verified and after his appointment, his service book was opened in which his date of birth was mentioned as 26.6.1954. There has been no interpolation or forgery or manipulation anywhere in the service book. None of the service records or certificates produced by the petitioner has been found to be forged or fabricated. The allegation has been made by one Rohit Kumar Rai, who is his full cousin brother being the son of one Gayo Rai, who is the third brother of his father Late Talo Rai. There was serious land dispute between the complainant and the family members of the petitioner and in Title Appeal No. 2(sic) 2006, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Giridih, he as well as his son was also a party. He further raised the plea that no departmental proceeding nor any allegation was initiated or levelled against him in the past and his service record is blemish free. Further reference has been made to an Identity Card issued by the Election Commission, showing his age as 52 years while the age of his elder brother is 54 years. Therefore, it was pleaded on his part that the entire allegations are based on personal animosity between his family and Rohit Kumar Rai on account of a pending land dispute between them. However, the respondents-District Superintendent of Education, Giridih has passed the order of termination of the petitioner's service on 18.8.2011 (Annexure-11), which is impugned herein, on the ground that he had procured appointment on the basis of a certificate showing his different date of birth. As per the enquiry report conducted through the Headmaster of the said High School and the materials procured during the course of enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's date of birth was 20.1.1940. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were terminated, as he had indulged in manipulation of his d(sic) of birth. It was further stated that the petitioner did not answer to the show cause notice issued to him one after other.

(2.) In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of termination is in the teeth of the Bihar State Nationalized Elementary School Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Action) Rules, 1994. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, for imposition of a major punishment of dismissal from service like the present one, the departmental proceeding is mandatory, which has not been followed in the instant case, though the petitioner had remained in service for 24 years and was confirmed in service. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed in total violation of the principle of natural justice without establishment of misconduct or guilt against the petitioner in a duly constituted departmental proceeding. The impugned order has also been challenged as a non-speaking order.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had got appointment on the basis of a certificate of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University on having passed Madhyama Examination from Sanskrit High School, Jharkhand Dham, conducted in the year 1973, which mentioned his date of birth as 26.6.1954, whereas in the year 1961-62, the petitioner appeared in Matriculation Examination from Dhanwar High School conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in which his date of birth was recorded as 20.1.1940. Since the Matriculation certificate is the conclusive proof of the date of birth of a person, the petitioner was issued three show cause notices to reply to the allegations. The petitioner, however, completely failed to rebut the charges that he had not appeared or passed the Matriculation examination, as alleged, in 1960-61 from the said school and that his date of birth was 20.1.1940 as recorded in the marksheet, corrected result of the Matriculation examination. The petitioner had therefore concealed his real date of birth mentioned in the High School admission register as well as in the certificate of Matriculation and got his date of birth recorded in the service book as 26.6.1954, which is wrong and baseless. The misdeeds of the petitioner were brought to the notice of the respondents-authorities by one Rohit Kumar Rai, who was his relative and upon proper enquiry from the school and after determination of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order has been issued after given due opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmi(sic)or is not violative of the principle of natural justice.