Allahabad High Court
Ajay Narayan Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest ... on 21 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38488-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28863 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ajay Narayan Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Department Lko. And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Kushwaha,Anupam Verma,Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.994 of 2018.
3. The petitioner was appointed as class IV employee in Forest Department in the year 1989, as a daily wager. At the time of his appointment, he was only class 8th pass. He subsequently appeared in the high school examination in 1992, but failed. The date of birth as mentioned in the high school mark-sheet/certificate is 15.03.1964. In the life insurance policy No.213045095 purchased on 30.04.2001 also his date of birth mentioned as 15.03.1964. The service of the petitioner was regularized against a permanent vacancy on the post of Sweeper on 14.03.2001. It appears that at the time of regularization, he submitted transfer certificate from Sri Ganesh Jokhan Sarvodaya Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gambhirpur, District Ghazipur, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 10.03.1974. At that time, the service book was prepared in which he had attested his date of birth as 10.03.1974 by putting his thumb impression but he appeared in the high school examination in 1992 and in the high school certificate, his date of birth mentioned as 15.03.1964. However, in 2001 when he was considered for regularization, he submitted the aforesaid documents from Sri Ganesh Jokhan Sarvodaya Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gambhirpur, District Ghazipur wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 10.03.1974 which is different. Accordingly, he was charge-sheeted on 07.05.2023 and enquiry was held. The earlier dismissal order was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that enquiry had not been conducted properly and the Tribunal desired that the fresh enquiry be held within four months. The second enquiry and the final order could not be passed within the said period as desired, but ultimately on an enquiry being held, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.12.2017. He thereafter, preferred an appeal against his dismissal from service which was dismissed on 06.04.2018 and then filed the claim petition as mentioned herein.
4. The only contention raised before us as was also raised before the Tribunal is that by mistake he had submitted the said certificate which, in fact, was in respect of his brother who had the same name as the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed copy of the claim petition before this Court but in his reply he has taken the stand and that reply is on record at Annexure No.C.A.4 (page no.23) of the counter affidavit.
5. During the second enquiry, the petitioner admitted the fact that he had mistakenly submitted the alleged forged certificate of Sri Ganesh Jokhan Sarvodaya Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gambhirpur, District Ghazipur and that the same belongs to his brother which was not accepted by the enquiry officer.
6. The enquiry officer sent a letter to the Principal of Jokhan Sarvodaya Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gambhirpur, District Ghazipur on 05.10.2017 and the Principal responded on 09.10.2017 by stating that the certificate was not issued by the college and any student by the name Ajay Narayan Ram S/o Ram Lakhan Ram had never studied in the said collage. Another letter was sent by the enquiry officer on 05.10.2017 to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the reply was received from the Controller of Exams of the said institution on 12.10.2017, in which it was confirmed that Ajay Narayan Ram had appeared for the Prathama examination of 2001, at examination centre No.1477, Lakhimpur Kheri. It was further testified that in the document the date of birth of the candidate was mentioned as 10.03.1974. However we fail to understand as to the relevance of the subsequent examination. Sri B.N. Singh, Former Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, South Kheri Forest Range, was also examined in enquiry and he testified about the document submitted by the petitioner at the time of his regularization and the attestation of the entries in the service book by the petitioner at the time of preparation of service book consequent to his regularization.
7. No doubt as has been held by the Tribunal these documents should have been supplied to the petitioner but once it is admitted by the petitioner that his date of birth is not 10.03.1974 but it is 15.03.1964 then it becomes immaterial especially in view of the explanation offered by him that he submitted the said certificate bearing date of birth as 10.03.1974 which was in fact that of his brother, therefore, it was incumbent on him to prove that he has a brother by the same name which ordinarily does not happen but there is no such proof led by the petitioner either before the enquiry officer or before the Tribunal or before us. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused. Moreover, the standard of proof in a criminal proceedings and in a disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal offence with which he was charged in the criminal proceedings by itself cannot be a ground for exonerating him in the disciplinary proceedings certainly not in view of the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove.
8. Based on the preponderance of probabilities which is the standard of proof in departmental proceedings neither the disciplinary authority nor the Tribunal can be faulted for having taken the decision as has been taken by them. Purely in the facts of this case which is not a fit case for interference. Judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality.
9. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
Shubhankar
