Submission of a forged educational certificate for obtaining employment by promotion warrants dismissal and not reversion, and the terms of appointment do not cover obtaining appointment by fraud and misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JUVNL.

3. Heard Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BSEB now Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing the office order no. 1748, dated-16.11.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary (IV), Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, Respondent No.- 4 as contained in Annexure-11 by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of respondents and also for quashing the office order no.-1000/Ranchi dated 14.08.2010 as contained in Annexure-13 by which the respondents no.- 3 has been pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal without application of mind and without considering the materials available on the record.

AND

For the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay the entire consequential benefits to the petitioner treating him as regular employee of the Respondents/Board i.e. reinstated employee and also to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner.

AND/OR

For the issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions as to your lordships may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner”

Arguments of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, has submitted that on the date of creation of the State of Jharkhand i.e., 15.11.2000, the petitioner was posted at Gumla and prior to creation of the State of Jharkhand, a departmental proceeding was initiated in which the petitioner participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the month of January, 2001. Second show cause dated 20.02.2001 (Annexure-9) was issued to the petitioner by the Authority of the Bihar State Electricity Board to which the petitioner responded vide reply dated 26.02.2001 (Annexure-10) and thereafter as per the counter-affidavit itself, the matter was sent to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi and ultimately the impugned order of punishment as contained in memo No. 5010 dated 16.11.2009 has been passed by the Joint Secretary-IV, Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

6. The learned counsel has raised the following points: -

(a) The enquiry has been conducted against the principles of natural justice, in as much as, the petitioner has not been granted sufficient opportunity to examine his defence witness. In support of this submission, the learned counsel refers to the enquiry report annexed with the counter affidavit, and submits that although the petitioner had expressed his desire to produce defence evidence but ultimately the defence evidence was closed on 14.11.2000 and the petitioner has been deprived of producing defence evidence.

(b) There is non-consideration of material facts by the enquiry officer. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the enquiry report, and submits that the enquiry officer was of the view that further investigation was required. He submits that no further investigation was done and enquiry report was submitted against the petitioner.

(c) Jharkhand having been created on 15.11.2000 and all the subsequent proceedings were to be conducted by the Authority in the State of Jharkhand as admittedly the petitioner was posted in the District of Gumla on the date of bifurcation. Therefore, all proceedings including further enquiry by another officer were to be undertaken by an authority to be appointed by the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel submits that in view of the jurisdictional point, the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment is vitiated and is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 JLJR 697 (High Cour