Bhagwan Das Srivastava vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
2016 Latest Caselaw 5543 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 25                                                                          A.F.R.
 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1055 of 2010
 
Applicant :- Bhagwan Das Srivastava
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Applicant :- S.P. Singh,R.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- D R Mishra,Ajay Kumar
 
Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and perused the record.

This contempt petition has been filed with the prayer for disobedience and non compliance of judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 222 (S/B) of 2004.

The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the writ court is reproduced here below:-

"Though we find that the contempt petition was barred by the limitation, the respondents appears to have refuse to implement the order and to give all consequential benefits including pay allowances and seniority to the petitioner on the ground that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has filed an appeal against petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has not able to provide any positive information in this regard. No appeal is maintainable against the judgment of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. A writ petition is maintainable, but that the District Basic Education Officer appears to have either wrongly mentioned the number of the writ petition, or is under some wrong impression. It is admitted that the order of the tribunal dated 30.5.1997 was not stayed and thus the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, of the order by which the suspension and departmental inquiry was quashed. The writ petition is consequentially allowed to the extent that the petitioner will be allowed all the consequential benefits, which has been deprived to him so far, subject to the result of any writ petition filed against the judgment. The order shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the respondent."

Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the writ court, the opposite parties have not paid the consequential benefits to the petitioner, while the order of suspension and departmental inquiry was quashed by the writ court. It has also been submitted that while passing the order dated 27.12.2012, which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, he was not aware of that order.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, has submitted that not only the mark-sheet of High School of the petitioner was found to be forged, but the petitioner has obtained the said order by mentioning the Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 , District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Allahabad High Court, while the actual number of the writ petition was Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997, Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another, thereby the petitioner again committed forgery. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court.

From the perusal of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 222 (S/B) of 2004, it appears that the petitioner has mentioned that the District Basic Education Officer has reinstated the petitioner on 31.08.1998 and preferred an Appeal No. 44430 of 1997, District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit, Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal in Allahabad High Court. In the order dated 21.01.2010, it has also come that the petitioner was required to find out the status of the appeal and as per the inquiry report, Writ Petition No. 44430 of 1997, Km. Mamta Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others was still pending.

In paras 11 and 12 of the short counter affidavit filed by opposite party no 4, the following averments have been made specifically:-

"11. That it is submitted that the petitioner Bhagwan Das Srivastava has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, as he had forged his High School Mark-sheet and obtained the order of reinstatement dated 31.8.1998 by mentioning Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 (Annexure No.3 to the contempt petition) instead of Writ A No. 44450 of 1997 (Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another) which is a forged document.

12. That from the aforesaid submission the High Court found that the petitioner Bhagwan Das Srivastava, has obtained the judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 by playing fraud, misrepresentation and misleading this Hon'ble High Court."

In reply to the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has simply denied the facts and has not specifically controverted the fact that the petitioner has obtained the judgment and order dated 21.01.2010 by playing fraud, misrepresentation and misleading the Court.

In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, it has also been mentioned that the petitioner has not come with clean hands as he has obtained the job on forged High School mark-sheet and further obtained the order of the reinstatement dated 31.08.1998 by mentioning the wrong appeal number.

In view of the specific allegations, no specific reply to the paras 11 and 12 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4 has been given, which goes to show the high handedness of the petitioner. Further Annexure R.A.1 has been filed regarding Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997, Adhyaksh Zila Parishad and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and another, which has been dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2010. It also appears that Appeal No. 44430 of 1997 absolutely does not belong to the petitioner and he has concealed the fact regarding the dismissal of Writ-A No. 44450 of 1997 from the Court.

Alongwith the short counter affidavit, a copy of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ- A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed as Annexure No. 4. This Court vide order dated dated 6.7.2012 disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations:-

"In view of specific allegation that respondent no. 5 was failed in the High School examination and the mark sheet filed by him for the purpose of appointment in the institution is forged, it is desirable to provide that respondent no. 1 shall himself summon the original records pertaining to appointment of respondent no. 5 and shall get his High School mark sheet verified from the Board of High School & Intermediate, U.P. at Allahabad. If after verification it is found that respondent no. 5 in fact has failed in the High School examination and the mark sheet filed by his for the purpose of appointment is a forged document, he shall issue necessary orders for recall/review application being filed before the Public Services Tribunal brining to its knowledge the fact that a person who has failed in the High School examination can never be appointed in an aided and recognized institution nor there can be an order for payment of salary from the state exchequer.

Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1 shall pass a reasoned speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5."

Opposite party no. 4 has passed a detailed speaking and reasoned order on 27.12.2012 in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed by this Court at Allahabad in Writ- A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the present petitioner was also opposite party no.5.

The perusal of the said order dated 27.12.2012 reveals that the present petitioner was required to submit his original document regarding High School mark-sheet/certificate for compliance of the order dated 6.7.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner was informed by letter nos. 3179/79-5-12 dated 7.11.2012 and 3297/79-5-12 dated 26.11.2012 through District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit, which were personally served upon the petitioner on 27.11.2012, but in view of that notice, the petitioner had neither appeared before the competent authority nor prayed for any adjournment.

Again another opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by letter dated 07.12.2012, which was personally served upon the petitioner on 10.10.2012 (It appears to be a typographical mistake and appears to be 10.12.2012), but even then despite of personal service, the petitioner has not appeared before the competent authority. In this regard, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no information, has no substance because in the order dated 27.12.2012, the specific letter numbers as well as dates have been mentioned by the Principal Secretary, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve that.

The Principal Secretary, after verification of the facts, came to the conclusion that roll number 73784 of High School Examination, 1961 was allotted to Km. Kunti daughter of Shri Vishnu Das and the said roll number was not allotted to the petitioner- Bhagwan Das Srivastava. It also reveals that on the mark-sheet, the roll number was mentioned as 73847 and a candidate in the name of Bhagawan Das Srivastava son of Badri Prasad had appeared in the High School Examination,1961 from Shri Ramchandra Municipal Intermediate College, Bisalpur, Piliphit having date of birth of 02.02.1943 and he was declared fail. Upon this basis, the petitioner was suspended on 23.09.1970. The inquiry was conducted against the petitioner after serving the charge-sheet upon him and in that sequence, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the charge-sheet, but has submitted his resignation. The Principal Secretary has come to the clear conclusion that the petitioner has obtained the job on the basis of the forged High School mark-sheet/certificate. Therefore, he is not entitled for any consequential benefits for the suspension period since 23.09.1970 to 31.08.1998.

From the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner adopted forged methods since very inception of the job. He manipulated the mark-sheet and the certificate of the High School examination and obtained the job on the forged mark-sheet /certificate of the High School examination. He was under obligation to have filed the reply to the charge-sheet, but instead of filing the reply to the charge-sheet, he submitted his resignation, upon which the department passed the order which was challenged before the Public Services Tribunal. The conduct of forgery did not end there but also continued by filing Writ Petition No. 222 (S/B) of 2004 upon the wrong facts and mentioning wrong Appeal No. 44430 of 1997. The order dated 27.12.2012 has been passed in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the petitioner was also opposite party no.5. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he avoided the disciplinary inquiry as well as he willfully did not appear before the competent authority, who issued written information which was served personally upon the petitioner regarding compliance of the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Writ-A No. 32253 of 2012, Rupesh Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others .

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the opposite party and have no hesitation to say that the opposite party should have lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner for submitting a false and fabricated High School mark-sheet and certificate and no leniency should have been shown for such a fraudulent person, who has wasted the precious time of the Court as well as of the Pubic Services Tribunal. Further the opposite party may recover all the payments made to the petitioner consequent to his appointment, as arrears of land revenue.

Teaching is a very pious and noble profession and the disciples learn from their "Guru" the lessons of book as well as lessons of life, but when the "Guru" himself is a corrupt person, he destroys the whole of the society and such corrupt teachers also damage the high standards of morality and ethics.

When the petitioner was himself was a High School failed candidate and indulged in obtaining the job of teacher by playing fraud, then it can very well be imagined, that what good lessons he could have taught to his students. Certainly, he could have spoiled the career of thousands of students during his job of teacher after reinstatement since 1998 to the date of his retirement in the year 2009. This damage to the society cannot be compensated in terms of money. At the same time demanding consequential benefits of his so called service, goes to show that he has no shame for his misdeeds.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.

This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date: 30.08.2016

GSY