SUMITRA GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 132 dated 9.2.2004 issued by the District Education Officer -respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that the educational certificate furnished by her at the time of appointment on compassionate ground was found forged.

(2.) IT is admitted case that the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1996, after the death of her father, Late Shivnath Gope, who was working as headmaster in the Koidi Primary School, Singhbhum West. The petitioner was appointed on Class IV post by the District Establishment Committee, after following the prescribed norms and procedure. Subsequently, somebody complained that the certificate of the petitioner 'seducational qualification is a forged one. One matter was brought before the District Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 9.9.2003 held under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. It was found that earlier a report was submitted by the Headmaster, Bhoya Middle School dated 18.11.1996 that the certificate issued to the petitioner was genuine and on that basis the payment of the petitioner 'ssalary was made. However, the Committee found that the petitioner has submitted two certificates; one of 7th pass and another of 8th pass and taking notice of the same, the Committee took a decision that the appointment of the petitioner appears to be based on a forged certificate and a proceeding is required to be initiated in respect thereof, in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter without framing any charge and without initiating any departmental proceeding, the impugned order dated 9.2.2004 has been issued dismissing the petitioner 'sservices.

(3.) MR . R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal (Annexure -5) has been issued on the ground of the decision taken in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee held on 9.9.2003. But no decision was taken for dismissal of services in the said meeting and it was only decided to initiate a proceeding in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that order of dismissal of an employee is a major punishment and the same cannot be awarded without framing a charge and initiating an enquiry giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity to defend herself. Admittedly, no charge was framed and there was no" departmental enquiry on any such charge in accordance with the provisions of law.