RIYAJUDDIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner has been terminated vide office order contained in Memo No. 846 dated 28.7.2011 allegedly without initiation of any departmental proceeding after eight years of service. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier against the aforesaid order in W.P. (S) No. 6960 of 2011, which was disposed of as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer representation with proper averments, allegations and annexures before respondent authorities vide judgment dated 17.5.2012. The petitioner's representation has been again rejected vide impugned order dated 22.1.2013 bearing memo No. 107 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Annexure-15. He has sought quashing of the aforesaid orders and consequential reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) In short, the petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher after being successful under the advertisement issued in the year 2002 and the exam i.e. Primary Teacher Selection Competition Examination, 2003 held thereunder by Jharkhand Public Service Commissioner, Ranchi. Upon recommendation of the case of the petitioner, he was issued appointment letter on 24.12.2003, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner's name is at serial No. 31 and was posted at Primary School, Kolkole, Lavalong in the district of Chatra. Thereafter he remained in service for eight long years.

(3.) In the meantime, the respondent conducted an enquiry behind his back and came to a conclusion that the certificate of Teacher Training produced by him was false and fabricated. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained an information under RTI, from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition on 30.3.2009, which indicated the name of the petitioner, his father's name, his date of birth, roll code, roll No. and marks fetched in examination conducted by the BSEB for the session 1986-88 at Primary Teacher Training College, Dumardaga, Ranchi. It is submitted that in spite of such information provided by the Board itself, the respondents, without initiating any departmental proceeding, terminated the petitioner's services, which is in teeth of the Statutory Rules framed under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India by erstwhile Government of Bihar vide notification dated 16.6.1994, Annexure-16, laying down the service conditions and the procedure for imposing major penalty like dismissal from service upon such an employee.