Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Shiv Kumar Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 13121 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Girijesh Tiwari.
For the Respondents: L.M. Singh, Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi.

The court emphasized that a person who procured appointment based on forged documents cannot be entitled to sympathy and must be dealt with strictly.

Headnote:
Forgery - Appointment Cancellation - U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9(4) - Judgments referred to by the petitioner
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School due to forged educational documents. The petitioner alleged that the cancellation was mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide specific replies to the charges and queries raised against him. The court also noted that the inquiry report was not served to the petitioner, but concluded that the irregularity did not render the cancellation of appointment void ab initio due to the petitioner's proven forgery.
Issues: Effect of the initial order finding the petitioner's documents genuine, compliance with relevant rules in the inquiry process, and the impact of not providing the inquiry report to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to provide specific replies, coupled with the proven forgery, outweighed the irregularity of not providing the inquiry report, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no interference was required under writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. By means of present writ petition petitioner has challenged order dated 20.07.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Deoria whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School was cancelled as after inquiry it was found that he got appointment on basis of forged educational documents.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Harnahi Chakarwa Bahordas, District Deoria on 24.12.2005. Later on he was promoted as Headmaster on 15.12.2008. In the year 2015 on a complaint that petitioner got appointment on basis of forged educational documents, an inquiry was initiated and office of District Basic Education Officer, Deoria vide order dated 09.11.2015 verified the documents and found that there was no ambiguity and documents were forwarded for further verification. Said order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter:

3. Sri Girijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that even after above order whereby documents submitted by petitioner at the time of appointment were found genuine still proceedings were initiated and on basis of police investigation First Information Report was lodged against petitioner on 16.07.2022 wherein petitioner is on anticipatory bail and according to instructions investigation is still pending.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that with mala fide intention of respondents, he was put under suspension vide order dated 13.04.2023 on basis of report of Additional Superintendent of Police (STF) dated 01.04.2021 and 15 days time was granted to petitioner to submit his reply. A charge sheet dated 05.06.2023 was served upon petitioner by Inquiry Officer levelling five charges against him. It is further case of petitioner that he has submitted an application dated 15.06.2023 that documents relied in support of charges levelled against him be provided and has denied all charges. The request was repeated by another letter dated 14.07.2023, however no documents were supplied to petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that without even serving copy of inquiry report dated 01.07.2023, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 20.07.2023 cancelled the appointment of petitioner from its initial date.

6. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that aforesaid exercise is contrary to principle of natural justice and due procedure as prescribed under relevant rules was not followed. Petitioner was not provided copy of inquiry report, therefore, punishment order is illegal and liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on judgments passed by this Court in Smt. Parmi Maurya vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2014 (2) ADJ 633, Pushpa Maurya vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 ADC 87867, Abhiram vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 AHC 93260, Sanjeet Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2020 AHC 105081 and Dilip Kumar Upadhyay and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2021 AHC 12853.

7. Per contra, Sri L.M. Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Advocate appearing for Respondents-2 and 3, have submitted that petitioner was provided various opportunities by issuing repeated notices, however, he failed to submit any reply even on pointed queries and thereafter inquiry was conducted and on basis of police report also all charges were found proved against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has referred the detailed inquiry report in this regard which is annexed alongwith counter affidavit. They further submitted that inquiry was conducted in accordance with due procedure and charge sheet was served upon petitioner, however, he has not replied to the charge sheet, therefore, on basis of material available, the Inquiry Officer has assigned reasons that charges were proved and thereafter appointment of petitioner was cancelled by disciplinary authority.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 3 has referred Para 12 o