PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing resolution dated 24.05.2012 passed by the District Education Establishment Committee, Godda so far it relates to petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Assistant Teacher and further for quashing memo dated 25.05.2012 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated in compliance of resolution dated 24.05.2012 and also for quashing order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Misc Petition No. 39 of 2011-12, by which the resolution dated 24.05.2012 passed by the District Education Establishment Committee has been confirmed and further prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix, as revealed and stated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 24.05.1988 as Assistant Teacher in the Matric Trained Scale and he joined on 27.05.1988 in Middle School, Mohani, Podiyahat, Godda. It is averred that after rendering a considerable period of services in different school, a complaint was made by one Mangal Sah, a distant relative of petitioner, that actual name of petitioner is Jagdish Sah and he falsely claims himself to be Pramod Kumar. On the basis of this complaint, an enquiry was conducted, in which, the District Superintendent of Education, after issuing show cause to the petitioner, found the allegation to be false and baseless. On the same allegation, the said Mangal Sah, had also lodged an F.I.R being Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 122 of 2007, in which, the police submitted final form on the ground that allegations made against the petitioner are false and further observed that the complainant, Mangal Sah, is a person of questionable character and he is not in good terms with the petitioner. Thereafter, the said Mangal Sah on the same allegation lodged a case before National Human Rights Commission, on account of which salary of the petitioner was stopped by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide memo dated 30.08.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 7098 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.12.2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. But surprisingly, after passing of the order, the District Superintendent of Education lodged another F.I.R being Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 06 of 2012, in which the police submitted again final form stating therein that the case lodged by the District Superintendent of Education is false and these allegations have already been investigated and came to an end with the same result. In the meantime, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner for the same set of allegations, in which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. Thereafter, it is alleged that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and basing of that enquiry report, the disciplinary authority/the District Education Establishment Committee imposed the impugned punishment of dismissal from services vide resolution dated 24.05.2012, and accordingly memo dated 25.05.2012 was issued by District Superintendent of Education, Godda, by which services of the petitioner was terminated in compliance of resolution dated 24.05.2012. It has further been averred that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda by his order dated 01.08.2012 confirmed the resolution dated 24.05.2012 of the District Establishment Committee, however, directed the DSE, Godda to pay the salary till the date of his termination from services.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents authorities have not taken into account the fact that the allegation on the basis of which the services has been terminated were earlier enquired into in a criminal case as well in a departmental enquiry and after thorough enquiry the competent authority found the allegation to be false. It has further been submitted that even the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularities. The entire departmental enquiry has been done behind the back of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that even the enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to defend his case, which caused great prejudice to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that initially the order of dismissal was not served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that allegation of impersonation cannot be sustained in law as well as in fact merely because there are two addresses available in the educational certificates of the petitioner.