Director Primary Education & Others vs Sudhir Kumar

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard.

The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2149 of 2015 dated 28.03.2017.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Basic Teacher in the Upper Primary School. A charge-sheet was issued to him, to which he submitted his reply. The petitioner's services were terminated on 02.06.2016, questioning which, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that termination of the services of a permanent Government employee, without conducting an inquiry, violated Article 311 of the Constitution of India; and the employer should have completed the inquiry, instead of straightaway terminating the services of the employee. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in "D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.: (1993) 3 SCC 259", the learned Single Judge quashed the order of termination, and directed the appellants herein to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner with all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. However, liberty was reserved to the appellants herein to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

While Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, would make a feeble attempt to submit that an inquiry was conducted into the matter, and would draw our attention to the letter dated 15.01.2015 addressed by the Block Education Officer to Additional Director (Education), wherein he states that he was forwarding the entire documents with evidence along with the letter of certification issued by the Registrar of Departmental Examination, there is no whisper in the counter affidavit regarding any inquiry having been conducted. Even this letter dated 15.01.2015 does not show that an inquiry was conducted wherein the delinquent employee was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the State or to produce evidence in his defence.

In the charge memo it is alleged that the petitioner had secured employment as a Basic Teacher by producing a false and fabricated Basic Training Certificate. While the allegation levelled against the petitioner is, no doubt, grave and serious, any action which can be taken against the delinquent, for such grave and serious allegations of misconduct, is only in accordance with the Rules in force, which contemplate an inquiry being held against the delinquent government servant; and for action to be taken only after complying with the Rules stipulated in this regard.

We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the respondent-writ petitioner. Suffice it to modify the order and hold that, since the allegations levelled against the respondent-writ petitioner is of his having secured employment by producing a forged and fabricated educational certificate as proof of his having the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post, back wages and other consequential benefits, which the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants herein to pay, shall be subject to the outcome of the inquiry to be conducted against him by the appellants herein.

Consequently, while the appellants are not obligated to pay the said amounts, to the respondent-writ petitioner in terms of the order under appeal, the respondent-writ petitioner would be entitled for payment of the said amount if he is absolved of the charges, levelled against him, in the departmental inquiry. The departmental inquiry shall be conducted and completed with utmost expedition and, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.