MD. SARFARAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to allow him to join his duty on the post of Home Guard under the respondent No.3. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988. On completion of his training of Bihar Home Guard on 14.11.1988, a certificate dated 18.11.1994 to that effect was given to the petitioner by the District Commandant (respondent No.2). Since thereafter the petitioner had been discharging his duty to the full satisfaction of the concerned respondent from time to time as was asked to him. All of a sudden, an F.I.R dated 2.6.2000 was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had got his name entered by cutting the name of one Raja Ram Prasad in the nominee roll register and thereby he had forged the document. On the basis of the said F.I.R, Dhanbad P.S.Case No. 305/2000 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 467/468/420/419 IPC. In the said case after full fledged trial the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the judgment dated 5.9.2002 (Annexure -4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. In the meantime, on the pretext of pendency of the said criminal case, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duty in spite of his repeated requests. The State, thereafter, preferred appeal being Acquittal Appeal (D.B) No. 23/2003 against the acquittal of the petitioner, but the said appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.11.03. The petitioner, thereafter, filed representation requesting the respondents to allow him to join his duties, but he was not allowed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition. By order dated 14.5.04 the writ petition was dismissed on the ground, inter alia, that before termination of service, the petitioner had been given the show cause notice. The petitioner then preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 433/2004 against the said order. The Appellate Court found that neither the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner before his termination from service. Taking into consideration the said ground and other grounds, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. This is how, this writ petition has been placed before this Court.

(2.) MR . Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there is no termination or dismissal of the petitioner by any written order neither there was any show cause notice nor any departmental proceeding before depriving the petitioner of joining his duty. The petitioner was not allowed to join his duty during pendency of the criminal case. The said criminal case ended in acquittal. The respondents also lost in appeal and there is, thus, no legal justification for denying the joining of the petitioner. No reason whatsoever has been assigned for not allowing the petitioner to join after his acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to join his duty as his services have not been terminated by the respondents. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) EARLIER the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner is guilty of false impersonation and that he is not entitled for any notice or departmental proceeding and acquittal in the criminal case will not entitle him to join the duty.