IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that discrepancies in personal information provided during the appointment process can justify dismissal from service, and that the High Court's role is limited to reviewing the legality of the disciplinary process rather than re-evaluating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment dated 04.03.2016, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services on the ground that at the time of seeking appointment he had furnished wrong information regarding his name, age and educational qualification.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 06.08.2016, whereby the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of punishment.

2. The facts of the case is that original writ petitioner was initially appointed under respondent-CCL on 19.09.1988 as CWL Gr.-III at Rajhara Colliery. Thereafter, he was promoted to higher posts and lastly, when he was working to the post of Assistant Loading Inspector, Rajhara Colliery, a charge-sheet dated 16.04.2015 was issued to him on the charge of giving false information regarding his name, age and father’s name, etc. at the time of seeking appointment. The said charge-sheet was issued on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer, Nawa Bazar, Palamau wherein it was revealed that petitioner had passed Praveshika Examination from “Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar” in the name of “Bijay Kumar Pandey”. The original petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show-cause denying all the charges levelled against him. However, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and submit his report. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report holding the original petitioner guilty of the charges.

3. It is the further case of petitioner that after submissions of report by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report to the original petitioner seeking his reply on the same. Thereafter, the original petitioner submitted detailed reply to the 2nd show-cause however, the Disciplinary Authority without taking notice of the facts as stated in the reply of the original petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 04.06.2016, dismissing the original petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by the said order of punishment, original petitioner preferred Appeal, however, the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of punishment and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the original petitioner.

Hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the Disciplinary Authority had stated that husband of petitioner had deliberately given false information at the time of appointment with regard to his name and date of birth and as such, he was charge-sheeted and upon enquiry he has been found guilty of charges, which is absolutely not tenable against the same. Learned senior counsel further argues that the date of birth as mentioned in the service excerpts was recorded by the respondent-authorities as per the medical report of the Medical Board constituted by the Management and as such, after 26 years of unblemished service, the same be disputed and raising of the dispute is against the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Learned senior counsel further argues that issue related to having two different names is also of not much relevance as because the same is of the year 2012-13 and various other documents i.e. Driving License, PAN Card, Rent Receipts have been submitted before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, however, the respondents have not considered those documents while passing the impugned order. Learned senior counsel further argues that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after 26 years of joining the service and as such, the same is barred by law of limitation. Learned senior counsel further argues that none of the documents based on which the Enquiry Officer has come to a finding