Allahabad High Court
Gulab Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31874 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gulab Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite party.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) thereby withholding entire retiral benefits of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 05/06.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of 'Lekhpal' by means of order dated 16.8.1990, passed by Chief Revenue Officer on probation for a period of two years. They were earlier sent for training along with certain other 'lekhpals' in year 1986 and they successfully completed the said training. Subsequently on submissions of the certificates of training the petitioners have been appointed on the post of 'Lekhpal'.
4. It is the case of the opposite parties that the petitioners have filed forged certificates of their experience of training and, hence, the appointment having been obtained by means of forged and fabricated documents which has been discovered by the opposite parties subsequently, they have been removed from service.
5. The petitioners have on the earlier occasion also approached this Court when despite having requisite experience certificate they were not sent to training and it is only on the direction of this Court, they were appointed on the post of 'Lekhpal' as directed by the order of this Court dated 07.12.1989. It has further been submitted that suddenly the opposite parties did not permit the petitioners to discharge his duties neither did they pass any order in this regard.
6. Petitioners again were constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1131 (SS) of 1994 and by means of judgment dated 16.02.2000 the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner to continue in service and they were also entitled of the consequential benefits.
7. The State being dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment had approached the Division Bench of this Court and this Court also considered the fact that the State had filed an FIR with regard to the forged certificate but observed that merely lodging of the FIR could not be a ground to stop the respondents from working that too without passing of a written order.
8. The Court further observed that in case State is of the view that respondents have obtained appointment by producing forged certificates the State is at liberty to take appropriate action after giving due opportunity to the respondents and pass appropriate orders and proceeded to dismiss the special appeal affirming the judgment of the single judge where the petitioners were directed to continue in service.
9. It is in furtherance of the directions given by the Division Bench that the opposite parties gave show cause notice dated 31.12.2014 along with charge sheet requiring the petitioner to submit the response to the charges levelled against him with regard to the fact that he had obtained employment on the basis of forged experience certificate.
10. The petitioner asked the opposite parties to give him the copy of the experience certificate and also show him a copy of the original experience certificate repeatedly but no action was taken in this regard and finally again a show cause notice was given to the petitioner requiring him to submit his reply within one week pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his reply of show cause notice dated 29.4.2017 on 27.5.2017. It is in pursuance to the aforesaid reply that the impugned order dated 24.01.2018 has been passed removing the petitioner from services.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a perusal of the entire impugned order would indicate that nowhere has his contention either been considered or even the material against the petitioner has been considered before passing of the said order.
12. In the impugned order the entire history of the litigation has been mentioned and it has also been stated that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for having obtained appointment on the basis of forged documents and it is also recorded that the police even after investigation could not find any material against the petitioner and consequently a final report was filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction which has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
13. It has been stated that there was no material against the petitioner in relation to the charges levelled against him for having submitted forged certificate with regard to his training. At no point of time was he ever shown the original copy of alleged forged certificate and, therefore, in the absence of original documents the petitioner was disabled from suitably replying charges levelled against him in the inquiry proceedings.
14. Even a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that no finding has been returned by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the nature of allegations levelled against him. The disciplinary authority has only relied upon the inquiry report where said documents were held to be forged. It seems that the disciplinary authority has neither applied its mind to the document or even dealt at any length as to what were the ingredients of the said letter on the basis of which it has been labelled as a forged documents.
15. In absence of these foundational facts merely coming to the conclusion that documents were forged, cannot be sufficient and cannot absolve the competent authority from conducting a thorough probe and coming to the definative finding before passing an order of punishment in the manner which has been dealt in the present case.
16. It is also noticed that subsequent to his appointment that the petitioner having been appointed on 17.7.1990 has worked for nearly three decades and it would otherwise also be inequitable to terminate his services on the ground of a forged experience certificate.
17. It is noticed that even prior to passing of this order which was passed in year 2018 by which time the petitioner had rendered nearly 28 years of service.
18. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) and order dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Deputy Collector - respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pass fresh order with regard to pension and other post retiral dues of the petitioner expeditiously, say within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
