Raghubans Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 5648 of 2011, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner, challenging his order of termination has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The impugned order shows that the appellant was working as Head Master in Ram Vilas+2 High School, Bermo at Bokaro. He was served with the memorandum of charges with the allegation that he had accepted the joining of fake teachers without any verification of their appointment / transfer letters and they were allowed to take their salary etc., and on that charge he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he was found guilty and his services were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority.

The appellant challenged the dismissal order in this Court, in W.P.(S) No. 1150 of 2009, without availing the appellate remedy, and accordingly, the said writ application was disposed of by order dated 09.02.2011, asking the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy first.

The Appellate Authority also maintained the termination of the service of the appellant, which was challenged by him in W.P.(S) No. 5648 of 2011, which upon adjudication by the Hon'ble Single Judge, has been dismissed by order dated 06.11.2015, holding that there is limited scope for interference in the punishment awarded in a departmental proceeding.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, out of eleven persons about whom the charge was framed against the petitioner, five were fresh appointees, who were subsequently found to be genuine persons. As regards remaining six persons, it is submitted by learned counsel that those teachers had joined the school consequent to a mass transfer, and accordingly, the petitioner had no opportunity to make any verification, whether they were genuine persons or fake persons. It is also submitted by learned counsel that it was not the duty of the petitioner, being the Head Master of the school, to examine whether the persons joining the school on transfer were genuine persons or fake persons, as it was on the basis of mass scale transfer, and the duty, if any, was cast upon the higher officials of the department.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant per se cannot be accepted, as it is the settled procedure that when transfer of a Government servant is made, one office copy of the transfer order is sent to the office where the employee is transferred. Thus, if any person shall be giving joining on the basis of forged transfer order, the officer accepting the joining cannot be allowed to take the defence, that he had no means to verify whether the transfer order is fake or genuine. The petitioner had accepted the joining of fake persons and allowed them to continue in office. The fact however, remains that the petitioner though had taken part in a departmental proceeding, but had not adduced any evidence in support of his defence, and the impugned order shows that there was no irregularity in the entire departmental proceeding.

We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of these facts, the Hon'ble Single Judge was perfectly justified in not interfering with the findings of the departmental proceeding, keeping in view the limited scope in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in interfering in the departmental proceeding matters.

We do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 5648 of 2011, worth any interference in exercise of L.P.A. jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.