MANESH CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging an order passed by District Establishment Education Committee, Godda dated 5th of February, 2003 (Annexure -1 to the memo of the petition) alleging against him that educational certificate of Master of Arts degree of the present petitioner was fabricated and was never given by the concerned educational institution.

(2.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in the year 1962 with the respondent no. 6. Thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster from st June, 1999 and he retired on 30th September, 2001. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that never during the course of his service any objection was raised by the respondents, after the retirement of the present petitioner vide order at Annexure -1 dated 5th February, 2003, a doubt has been raised by the respondents that M.A. certificate, which was presented by the petitioner after getting services in the year 1962, was fabricated. In fact, never any chargesheet was given nor any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner otherwise, the petitioner would have pointed out that no fabricated documents were ever presented by the petitioner and the petitioner was having true and correct certificate of Master of Arts and the respondents could have been satisfied about the aforesaid aspect. The order at Annexure -1 of District Establishment Education Committee, Godda reveals that the promotion which was given to the petitioner on 1st June, 1999 was illegal and this order was passed in the month of February, 2003. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that criminal proceedings were instituted against the present petitioner as well as against two other persons namely Narottam Kumar Thakur and Niranjan Prasad Singh. The Superintendent of Education, Godda was informant and a case was instituted at Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 397 of 2001. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in a rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner at Annexure -5 to the rejoinder affidavit, summary report has been filed by the police, in the criminal proceedings. Thus, summary report exonerates the present petitioner and other two persons namely Narottam Kumar Thakur and Niranjan Prasad Singh. Summary report has also been accepted by the concerned trial court. Looking to the Annexure -6 to the rejoinder affidavit, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda had also revoked the suspension of other two persons namely Narottam Kumar Thakur and Niranjan Prasad Singh and as the petitioner was already retired on 30th September, 2001, there was no need for revocation of suspension. Thus, in criminal proceedings, the petitioner and other two similarly situated Headmasters were not found guilty and their suspensions were also revoked and therefore, neither on civil side any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and on criminal side, summary report has been filed which was accepted by the court. Thus, the objection which was raised by District Establishment Education Committee, Godda vide order dated th February, 2003 at Annexure -1 to the memo of the present petition for holding promotion of the present petitioner is illegal is without any basis and without any material. There is not an iota of evidence that a promotion given to the petitioner on 1st June, 1999 was illegal and therefore, the order at Annexure -1 passed by the respondents dated th February, 2003 deserves to be quashed and set aside so far as the present petitioner is concerned and the petitioner is entitled to all the retirement benefits on the basis of last pay drawn as a Headmaster and treating the promotion of the present petitioner as valid and legal and in accordance with law.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: