Advocates:
['RAJIV SINHA', '', 'JITENDRA TRIPATHI', 'MD ASHRAFUZZAMAN KHAN', '', 'MD ANISURZZAMA KHAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2213 of 2019

.....

Union of India

--- --- Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Sabita Kumari

-- --- Respondent

---

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Through Video Conferencing

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.

Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, CGC.

For the Respondent

: Mr. Anish Khan, Adv.

---

13/05.01.2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant/respondent herein secured appointment as a

Safaiwali by submitting a matriculation certificate (Annexure-2) issued by the

Bihar School Examination Samiti, Patna dated 21^st November 1998 showing

her to have passed the matriculation exam in 2^nd Division. The appointment

letter (Annexure-3) being office memorandum dated 7^th August 2013 besides

containing several other conditions stipulated as under :-

<14. If any declaration given or information furnished by him/her

proves to be false or if he/she is found to have willfully suppressed

any material information, he/she will be liable to removal from

service and such other action as Government may deem necessary.

........................

A formal joining letter will be issued after verification of

character and antecedents and certificates etc., and if verification

reveals that any certificate is false, the service will be terminated

without assigning any reason and without prejudice to such further

action as may be taken under the provision of Indian Penal Code

for production of false certificate.=

On verification from the Bihar School Examination Samiti, it

turned out that she had failed in the matriculation exam. Letter dated 31^st

December 2015 (Annexure-5) containing the verification report of the three

employees including the applicant Sabita Kumari is enclosed in support. It

also contains an endorsement against the name of the applicant that the

certificate of having passed matriculation in 2^nd Division is wrong. She was

asked to show-cause vide letter dated 2^nd March 2016 and 5^th April 2016 and

being dissatisfied with her explanation, her services were terminated vide

order dated 3^rd June 2016. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of

-2-

the Apex Court in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi

Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar & Ors. [JT 2015 (9) 363] and

came to a finding that due procedure as contemplated under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India has not been followed, though the order of termination is

stigmatic in nature. Direction was issued to reinstate her and also grant back

wages to the extent of 50%. The respondents/petitioner herein were granted

liberty to conduct proper inquiry in accordance with law and take further

action.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

conditions of the appointment letter and also for the reason that if the

appointment has been secured on a false representation/forged document i.e.

the matriculation certificate, the entire super-structure has to fall, if the edifice

goes away. Therefore, there was no requirement of following the procedure as

prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order

deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent herein submits that

the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Samiti is not alleged to

have been forged by the petitioner as is also obvious from the verification

report dated 31^st December 2015 (Annexure-5) submitted by the Deputy

Secretary (Vigilance) of the Examination Committee. Applicant had

completed two years of probation and must be treated to have been confirmed

in service. Therefore, a proper disciplinary inquiry ought to have been