Dismissed

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Rishiraj Meena Son of Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2023CW/3341/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition by a terminated cook. While the court noted the termination based on documentary evidence without witness examination was flawed, it held that no merit existed because the employee had no viable appeal remedy as the punishment was passed by higher authorities.

What the court decided

AI extract

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs Rishiraj… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001211]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3341/2022

¶4

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, District Gauttam Budh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)- 201307

¶5

Joint Commissioner (Personnel), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, District Gauttam Budh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)- 201307

¶6

Dy. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur Region, Regional Office 18, Sangram Colony, Mahaveer Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001

¶7

Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jat Baroda, Gangapur City, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 322201

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Rishiraj Meena Son Of Late Shri Amol Singh Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gurdah (Chowki Ka Pura), Tehsil Mandrayal, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

01/02/2023

¶16

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent.

¶17

The petitioner-respondent was employed as a cook with the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV). His services were terminated vide order dated 06.05.2015 following an enquiry into the charges of having produced forged experience certificates.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001211]

[CW-3341/2022]

The petitioner-respondent for the purposes of securing the job of the cook had produced certain certificates of the Hilitop Palace Hotel Private Limited, Udaipur and M/s. P. Raj Catering Contractor, Jaipur to show that he had the relevant experience of cooking of five years. Subsequently, the respondents-petitioners held an enquiry against the petitioner-respondent for producing forged certificate for the purposes of obtaining the job. In the said disciplinary enquiry, certain letters were obtained from the above hotels and canteen stating that the respondents had not worked with them.

¶22

On the basis of the said documentary evidence, the enquiry report went against the petitioner-respondent and his services were terminated. 5. The petitioner-respondent challenged the termination order by means of an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur. The said Original Application has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2021 holding that the petitioner-respondent was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the evidence produced to prove the certificates to be fake rather no evidence was adduced against the documentary evidence in the form of letters to prove the certificates to be fake.

¶23

The Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491, wherein it has been held that if an order of punishment is passed solely on the basis of documentary evidence and the same is not proved by examining witnesses executing the said document, the order of

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001211]

[CW-3341/2022]

punishment cannot be sustained even if the documents are admitted by the charged Officer.

¶28

In the case at hand, the punishment order has been passed solely relying upon the letters alleging that the experience certificates of the petitioner-respondent are fake but without examining any witness to prove the said letters. No witness was examined to prove that said letters were written by the person concerned.

¶29

In view of the above, as the said letters were not proved, no order of punishment could have been passed treating the certificates of experience furnished by the petitioner-respondent to be fake.

¶30

The other argument of learned counsel for the respondentspetitioners is that against the order of termination, the petitionerrespondent had an opportunity of a departmental appeal and he could not have straightaway approached the Tribunal by means of an Original Application.

¶31

The petitioner-respondent is a Group-D employee and his appointing/disciplinary authority is the Principal, JNV, who is the competent authority to pass an order of punishment. Against the order of the punishment as per the Notification dated 06.03.2007, the petitioner-respondent had a remedy of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal that has been specified as Deputy Commissioner.

¶32

In the case at hand, the punishment order against the petitioner-respondent has been passed not by the Principal, JNV but the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the petitionerrespondent had no remedy left to file any appeal. In cases where

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001211]

[CW-3341/2022]

the order of punishment itself is passed by a higher authority than the appointing/disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, the remedy of appeal loses significance and in such a situation, the petitioner-respondent was left with no remedy but to approach the Tribunal or the Court.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶38

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶39

(PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

¶40

N.GANDHI/RAJAT/27

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Rishiraj Meena Son of Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti v. Rishiraj Meena Son of Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilraj Gujar S/O Shri Shankar Lal Gujar Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Sh.Puranmal Saini and Ors.

Rohit Sharma S/O Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bachchu Singh S/O. Shri Latoori Vs the State of Rajasthan

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs Damodar Singh Gunawat S/O Late Shri Amol Singh Meena

Yogendra Singh S/O Late Narayan Singh Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.