Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Shiv Raj Yadav, son of Shri Badhwa Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondents
LPA No. 720 of 2019
Decided on : 14-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Saboo,
IMPORTANT POINT
Service of a regular employee cannot be terminated without a domestic inquiry, unless validly dispensed with.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - WP(S) No. 6176 of 2008 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Board Miscellaneous Rules 165 and 166
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee in 1989. Subsequently, his salary was stopped, and he was dismissed from service due to allegations of producing fake certificates. The writ petitioner approached the court challenging the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal was invalid as the writ petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself, and the termination without a domestic inquiry was illegal.
Issues: Validity of dismissal without a domestic inquiry, Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
Ratio Decidendi: Service of a regular employee cannot be terminated without a domestic inquiry, unless validly dispensed with. Condonation of delay can be allowed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and directed the reinstatement of the writ petitioner with full salary and allowances for the actual period of work.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
IA No. 2615 of 2021
This Interlocutory Application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having been satisfied with the grounds taken in this Interlocutory Application, delay of 71 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
3. IA No. 2615 of 2021 is allowed. LPA No. 720 of 2019
4. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th June 2019 by which WP(S) No. 6176 of 2008 has been dismissed.
5. Briefly stated, on 31st March 1989 the Deputy Commissioner of Lohardaga called the names from Employment Exchange for appointment of Class-IV employees and the writ petitioner was duly appointed as Class-IV employee. More than 12 years thereafter, by an order dated 13th June 2002 the Executive Engineer, REO Works Division at Lohardaga issued a direction to stop salary of the writ petitioner till verification of the complaint made against him and asked him to deposit the original school certificate etc. However, a copy of the complaint was not provided to him and, on the contrary, the Executive Engineer issued a further direction not to take work from him by an order dated 6th March 2003. Both these orders were challenged in WP(S) No. 5103 of 2003 which were quashed by the writ Court but it was only after Contempt Case (Civil) No. 430 of 2004 was filed salary to the writ petitioner for the period he actually worked was paid and was permitted to rejoin his duties. However, he was not allowed to work and again payment of salary was stopped. Therefore, the writ petitioner again approached this Court in WP(S) No. 6176 of 2008. Initially the writ petitioner had approached the Court with a grievance that he was not paid salary from March 2003. During pendency of the writ petition office order dated 6th February 2010 was issued by invoking Board Miscellaneous Rules 165 and 166 to dismiss him from service and this order was put to challenge by the writ petitioner by filing IA No. 2075 of 2012.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the respondents have taken a stand that the writ petitioner was paid salary till April 2002 and thereafter he had stopped working. The respondents took a stand that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner as there was a complaint against him that he had produced fake certificates. Therefore he was directed to produce original documents before the Superintending Engineer, RWD, Work Circle at Ranchi on 12th January 2009 to whom the matter was referred for enquiry. The respondents have further pleaded that the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner was conducted on 22nd July 2009 in the office of the Superintending Engineer at Ranchi and it was found that he has obtained fake certificates. So the matter was discussed in the Establishment Committee meeting and a decision was taken to terminate the writ petitioner from service.
7. Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned State counsel submits that the certificate produced by the writ petitioner was not found in the school records and in the service book of the writ petitioner a different name of his father has been written through overwriting.
8. In the order dated 24th June 2019, the writ Court has held that there is a serious dispute as to genuineness of the certificate produced by the writ petitioner and such dispute does not fall within the domain of jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no relief can be granted to him.
9. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed through the procedure prescribed for appointment of Class-IV employees by calling name of candidates from Employment Exchange. In the list prepared by the District Establishment Committee on 14th March 1989 of eleven candidates the writ petitioner's name appeared at serial no. 3, he was asked to undergo through the process of interview on 28th April 1989, his origina
