Dismissed

Rajesh Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2023WPC/1317/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders terminating the petitioner's service for fraud. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited and interference is permissible only for perversity, lack of evidence, or violation of natural justice. Since evidence confirmed the forgery, the dismissal was

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 5.6.2013 terminating service and appellate order dated 13.9.2013 confirming termination were upheld and the petition was dismissed.

Rajesh Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1317 of 2018

¶2

Rajesh Kujur.... ….. Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Ranchi.

¶6

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi.

¶7

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi. … Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶9

For the petitioner(s): M/s Diwakar Upadhyay, Abhilasha Kumari and Shivam Agarwal, Advocates. . For the respondent(s): Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V

¶10

04/16.01.2023: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 20/2013 by which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The Appellate order as contained in Memo No. 3530 dated 13.9.2013 confirming the order of termination is also under challenge.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that minimum educational qualification for driver constable in Police Department is Class-VII. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed Class-VII and the documents which the petitioner had produced before the authority at the time of his appointment was by the mistake. She also submits that the punishment is too harsh.

¶12

Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has accepted his guilt and it is admitted that the documents which were produced by the petitioner were forged.

¶13

Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2009, and after completion of formalities, the petitioner was appointed as a driver constable in Police Department. He produced his educational certificates and documents, which was sent for verification. The Bihar School Examination Board sent a report that the certificate which the petitioner has produced actually does not relates to him, rather it is of another person, as per the records maintained by them. This fact was also verified by the respondents and was found to be correct.

¶14

An FIR being Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 294 of 2012 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner was also chargesheeted departmentally for producing fake and forged documents. Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after examining the witnesses concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed.

¶15

In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶16

¶17

especially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37, thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review on the findings and arrive at a different decision. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere only when the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:-

¶18

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

¶19

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

¶20

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

¶21

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

¶22

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based;

¶23

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

¶24

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

¶25

7 . Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof has held as under:-

¶26

24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of

¶27

¶28

certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

¶29

8 . In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has narrated the scope, which reads as follows:-

¶30

25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public service, the court is to examine and determine:

¶31

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

¶32

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.

¶33

9 . In paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution, the Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of mala fides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings. As long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

¶34

In this case, I find that the allegation against the petitioner is of furnishing forged and fabricated documents, which are his educational certificate. The Bihar School Examination Board has affirmed that the certificate which the petitioner produced does relates to him, as per records maintained by them. The Enquiry Officer also found that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved, basing on the evidence. Thus, the petitioner was dismissed after following the proper procedure.

¶35

I find that no procedural irregularity and illegality in the instant case. The petitioner obtained government service by producing forged documents, thus the entry in service is by means of fraud and fraud vitiates all actions.

¶36

Since the petitioner got his appointment resorting to unfair means, I find no illegality in removing the petitioner from service by the impugned order. All procedures have duly been followed as the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. I find no illegality in both impugned orders dated 5.6.2013 as contained in Memo No. 5307 and the appellate order dated 13.9.2013 as contained in Memo No. 3530.

¶37

Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

¶38

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶39

Anu/-CP2.

Rajesh Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sri Anil Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdhesh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ashok Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Serajuddin Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Managing Director through Its Managing Director