SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Jhk) 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Govind Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & others – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 396 of 2012
Decided On: 16.1.2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: JC to AG.

Presentation of forged and fabricated documents, discrepancies in the date of birth, and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation can justify the termination of service.

Headnote:

Forgery - Termination of Service - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 - Right to Information Act - [KEYWORD] - [Forgery] - [Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, Right to Information Act] - The court discussed the forged and fabricated documents presented by the appellant, the discrepancies in the date of birth, and the findings from the Right to Information Act, which led to the termination of service. The court upheld the termination based on the fraudulent basis for seeking appointment and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant's service was terminated based on allegations of presenting forged documents and facing criminal charges under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged the termination through a writ petition, claiming lack of proper opportunity to show-cause and hindrance due to a pending criminal case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's documents were forged and fabricated, leading to the termination of service. The court upheld the termination, citing discrepancies in the date of birth and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation.

Issues: Alleged wrongful termination, lack of opportunity to show-cause, hindrance due to pending criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's presentation of forged and fabricated documents, discrepancies in the date of birth, and findings from the Right to Information Act justified the termination of service. The appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation further supported the court's decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the termination of the appellant's service based on the fraudulent basis for seeking appointment and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation.

JUDGMENT

1. Writ petitioner is the appellant who has preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th August 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1425/2011.

2. Service of the writ petitioner/appellant is said to have been terminated by the respondents by order dated 9th May 2011 which was under challenge in the writ petition. The appellant is said to have joined on the post of Home Guard in Giridih district on 15th February 1984 on the basis of the certificate issued from Primary School, Kurhu Bindo, Giridh. Pursuant to the advertisement for appointment of constable / driver published in the year 2004, the petitioner applied for and was selected vide Annexure-2 dated 21st April 2010. Annexure-2 appears to be a provisional selection order whereunder the appellant was asked to appear with necessary educational / caste / character / residential / home guard certificates in original along with two passport size colour photographs and for re-measurement at Police Centre, Hazaribagh, so that after due verification, necessary action could be taken for his appointment. The instant Memo categorically states that it should not be treated as an appointment letter. However, it is alleged by the appellant that he was terminated from service on the allegation that he had filed a false certificate of Class-VII. It is stated that he came to know through the newspaper publication. The appellant also came to know that an FIR being Town PS Case No. 454/10 was registered against him under sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the petitioner, such publication dated 18th June 2010 was initially challenged in the writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ application, he is said to have been terminated from service on 9th May 2011 vide Memo No. 2440 in a departmental proceeding no. 60/10. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant pursued the writ petition inter-alia alleging that the same was issued without any proper opportunity to show-cause and the petitioner was precluded from attending the departmental inquiry because of institution of the FIR against him.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that information were sought for under the RTI in relation to the admission register of the year 1980 of the said school as also results of Class-VII of the year 1982 from the Middle School, Kurhu Bindo where he had cleared Class-VII exam. The information furnished by the DSE, Giridih on 5th May 2012 reveals that the petitioner had cleared the Class-VII exam. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in holding that the petitioner had not cleared Class-VII exam and had obtained service by virtue of forged and fabricated documents. The appellant on earlier occasion, was asked to produce the original covering letter furnished under the Right to Information Act which has been subsequently filed by way of supplementary affidavit.

5. Counsel for the appellant repeatedly harped upon the results enclosed with the copy of the RTI as per which, he has been shown to have been passed in Class-VII exam, though he secured 18 marks in Maths paper and 31 marks in Hindi paper. The appellant therefore has assailed the impugned judgment as being suffering from errors of law as well as of facts.

6. Counsel for the respondents has however opposed the submissions of the appellant. By referring to order of termination contained in Memo dated 9th May 2011 (Annexure-5), it has been submitted that the relevant transfer certificate of the appellant was sent for verification to the Middle School, Kurhu Bindo, Jamua-2, Giridih. From perusal of report submitted by the concerned school, it transpires that such certificate was not issued by the said school and the appellant's name was not found in the register maintained by the said school. There has been difference in the date of birth in the documents submitted with the original application with that of the origi




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top