Rakshpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12th July 2010 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the present Appellant has been dismissed.

It appears that earlier in respect of certain claim of payment of his salary, the Petitioner had approached the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide order dated 8.4.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Dhananura. He approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18620 of 2004, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2008 on the ground of alternative remedy of filing a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred the claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow which vide order dated 30.12.2009 after setting aside the order dated 8.4.2004 remanded the matter to the concerned authority to hold a proper inquiry to find out if the appointment order or any other document produced by the Appellant is forged and false and if they come to a finding that the appointment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents then liberty was given to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions given by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the authorities after making due inquiry have come to the conclusion that the Appellant had obtained the appointment by producing forged documents. The order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was again challenged by the Appellant by means of writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Appellant can avail the alterntive remedy of filing the claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal.

We have heard Sri S.C. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and have perused the judgment and order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and also the documents filed along with it.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had travelled beyond the scope of the order/directions given by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal to the effect that the Appellant had obtained the status of a confirmed employee. He further submitted that the writ petition is maintainable.

We may mention here that even though the Tribunal had held that the Appellant had obtained the status of a confirmed employee but it had remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for holding a proper inquiry as to whether the appointment has been obtained on forged documents or not and if the appointment has been obtained by producing forged documents, and if proved, liberty was given to the concerned authority to take appropriate decision. The concerned authority has found that the appointment has been obtained by filing forged documents. This is a question which requires investigation on question of facts which in our considered opinion can more appropriately gone into by the Tribunal instead of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the scope of inquiry and jurisdiction is very limited. In this view of the matter, do not find any legal infirmity in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge and fully agree with the view taken by him.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.