The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plea of prejudice due to non-supply of the inquiry report is not valid if the delinquent employee did not deny the charges and could not establish the genuineness of the educational certificates.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Basic School in erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 14.02.1997. A charge-sheet dated 07.09.2015 was served upon him with a covering letter dated 24.09.2015, asking petitioner to give reply to the charge that he obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged marks sheet of Basic Teachers Certificate (B.T.C.) and marks sheets/certificates of High School and Intermediate Examination.

2. The reply given by petitioner to the charge-sheet is on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3. Perusal of reply reveals that petitioner did not deny the charges, and he simply said that he has produced the evidence regarding the charges before Hon’ble High Court, and whatever decision is taken by Hon’ble Court, shall be acceptable to him.

3. It is revealed that petitioner was put under suspension, vide order dated 25.08.2015 and he had challenged the suspension order by filing WPSS No. 2055 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2016 with a direction to the Competent Authority to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within three months.

4. The report of inquiry officer is on record as Annexure CA-9 to the counter affidavit. Perusal of the same reveals that the registered envelop, whereby suspension order was sent to petitioner, was returned undelivered with the remark that petitioner does not reside at the given address, thus, it was inferred that petitioner had given wrong address, at the time of his appointment. In paragraph no. 4 of the said report, reference is made to the reply to the charge given by petitioner that he has produced entire evidence regarding charges before the Hon’ble Court. It is further observed that educational certificates produced by petitioner, on verification, were found to be fake.

5. Based on the report of inquiry officer, punishment of removal from service was imposed upon petitioner by Chief Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nainital, vide order dated 26/30.12.2015, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the B.T.C. Certificate produced by petitioner is not fake. He has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below:

“15. That the petitioner did his basic training examination in the year 1990 from Government Diksha Vidhyalaya Ganjdudvara, Etah. The petitioner took his examination with Roll No. 1303 and this certificate is recognized by the education department of U.P. The true copy of the certificate as well as the mark-sheet is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.”

7. Reply to paragraph no. 15 of the writ petition is given in paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit, which is reproduced below:

“12. That the contents of Para 15 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner initially appointed in the education department in Nainital in 1997 as Assistant Teacher of Government Primary School. At the time of appointment the petitioner has submitted his High school marksheet/certificate for the year 1982 with roll no. 053487 and intermediate marksheet/certificate of the year 1985 bearing roll no. 605341. The Secretary Secondary Education Board, Uttar Pradesh has informed that against the roll numbers mentions by the petitioner the name of some other candidates are registered as per the available records with the Board.

At the time of appointment the petitioner has also submitted BTC marksheet for the year 1988 with roll no. 639 issued by the Rajkiya Diksha Vidalaya, Budhanpur, Muradabad (332 marks obtained by the petitioner shown to be 332/650). On verification of the above marksheet by the Secretary Examination regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad it was revealed that the BTC marksheet is not correct and contrary to the records available with authorities. True and correct cop