Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ananda Sen, J.
Rajesh Kujur - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 1317 of 2018
Decided On : 16-01-2023
For the Petitioner:M/s Diwakar Upadhyay, Abhilasha Kumari and Shivam Agarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings and the need for evidence-based findings, highlighting the principles of natural justice and the power of judicial review to ensure fairness in treatment.
Headnote:
Forgery - Employment Termination - Bihar School Examination Board - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey - State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao - Deputy General Manager v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service for producing forged educational certificates. The petitioner's appeal against the dismissal was also rejected. The court reviewed the evidence and found the dismissal to be lawful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had obtained government service by producing forged documents, and thus the dismissal was justified. The court also noted that all procedures had been duly followed, and the petitioner had been given a full opportunity to defend himself.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the dismissal based on the production of forged documents, the adherence to procedural requirements, and the opportunity given to the petitioner to defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings, citing the principles of natural justice and the need for evidence-based findings. The court also highlighted that the power of judicial review is to ensure fairness in treatment, not to ensure fairness of conclusion.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the termination of the petitioner's employment.
JUDGMENT :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 20/2013 by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The Appellate order as contained in Memo No. 3530 dated 13.9.2013 confirming the order of termination is also under challenge.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that minimum educational qualification for driver constable in Police Department is Class-VII. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed Class-VII and the documents which the petitioner had produced before the authority at the time of his appointment was by the mistake. She also submits that the punishment is too harsh.
3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has accepted his guilt and it is admitted that the documents which were produced by the petitioner were forged.
4. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2009, and after completion of formalities, the petitioner was appointed as a driver constable in Police Department. He produced his educational certificates and documents, which was sent for verification. The Bihar School Examination Board sent a report that the certificate which the petitioner has produced actually does not relates to him, rather it is of another person, as per the records maintained by them. This fact was also verified by the respondents and was found to be correct.
5. An FIR being Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 294 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner was also chargesheeted departmentally for producing fake and forged documents. Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after examining the witnesses concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed.
6. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37, thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different decision. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere only when the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:-
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
7. Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof h
