Chattisgarh High Court

Brijbai Bhatpahari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                                   1                                     WPS No. 7142 of 2016




Digitally
signed
by AMIT                                                                        2025:CGHC:18190
PATEL
                                                                                                AFR

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                            WPS No. 7142 of 2016

                                       Order reserved on : 13.02.2025
                                         Order passed on : 22.04.2025
            Brijbai Bhatpahari, Wd/o Late Shri Balaram Bhatpahari, Aged About 49 Years R/o
            New Rajendra Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Sector 1, Street No C 33 Raipur Chhattisgarh,
            Chhattisgarh
                                                                                     --- Petitioner
                                                       versus
            1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi
            Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh P.S. Rakhi,
            2-District     Education   Officer,    Raipur,      District   :   Raipur,       Chhattisgarh
            3- Director, Directorate Public Education Raipur Division, District : Raipur,
            Chhattisgarh


                                                                                   ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate.

For State/Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by assailing the orders dated 10.09.2014, 08.04.2016, 18.07.2016 and

25.04.2001 (Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent

authorities. The petitioner by way of present petition is calling under question

the orders whereby, the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement

in service on account of acquittal of the criminal case has been rejected on the

grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the verification

form at the time of appointment. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner

for the following reliefs:-

"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 (Annexure P/1 Colly) and order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner back into service.

10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.''

2. The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, husband

of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School,

Gidhpuri, Block-Palari, Raipur Division, Raipur, her husband died in harness

while working as Assistant Teacher and thereafter the petitioner applied for the

compassionate appointment. Copy of appointment order dated 13.04.1998 is

filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/3, the appointment was granted after

due verification of the details provided in the application form. The petitioner

joined her duty on 21.04.1998 in pursuance of the appointment order as would

be evident from letter dated 21.04.1998. Copy of her joining letter is filed and

marked herewith as Annexure P/4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was falsely

implicated in murder case of her husband and was sent to jail, the petitioner

being released on bail requested the authority to allow her to rejoin services.

Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the grounds

that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the form seeking

compassionate appointment and character certificate was obtained. The

petitioner replied to the show cause notice stating that the information

provided in application for compassionate appointment was true and correct

and nothing had been concealed. In support of her contention, the petitioner

referred to the letter dated 29.11.1997 issued by the respondent authorities on

the address given by the petitioner, which was duly received by her. The

petitioner stood convicted in the trial and therefore, it would have been a futile

exercise to pursue the matter further till her innocence was proved in the Court

of law. Finally, the petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide its order dated

22.07.2014. Copy of order dated 22.07.2014 is filed and marked herewith as

Annexure P/8. After acquittal, the petitioner moved a representation before

respondent No.1 for considering her case for reinstatement before the D.E.O.,

however, the same was dismissed vide its order dated 10.09.2014. The

petitioner moved a representation dated 20.08.2015 before the higher

authorities. The petitioner's representation has been dismissed vide its order

dated 08.04.2016 followed by the order dated 18.07.2016. Copy of the

impugned orders dated 10.09.2014, 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 are filed and

marked herewith as Annexure P/1 (colly.). The respondents in the impugned

order has taken a new ground that the petitioner had given wrong declaration

in the application form and therefore, the impugned orders had been passed,

whereas, from perusal of Annexure P/2, it will be evident that the same was

passed on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address,

because of which, her character could not be verified. The petitioner submitted

that the information regarding address was correctly provided in the

application form and no concealment was made in application form. After

demise of her husband, the petitioner has no source of livelihood. Hence, this

present petition filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are

oppressive and arbitrary, the petitioner had furnished correct address in the

application form, the petitioner had received communications from the

respondent authorities on the address furnished by the petitioner in the

application form. The petitioner had not furnished any wrong information or

concealed anything in the application form and all the information as asked in

the verification form was furnished. The petitioner was completely dependent

upon her husband for her survival and in absence of employment, she is

finding it difficult to meet her ends. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal case, the initial

order dated 25.04.2001 was passed on the basis that the petitioner had

furnished wrong information of address in the verification form, which is

contrary to the records, so the impugned orders dated 08.04.2016 &

18.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) are

liable to be set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner

back into service with all consequential benefits. He places reliance upon the

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.,1

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State strongly and

vehemently opposes the above prayer as made by learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that husband of the petitioner namely late Shri Balram

Bhatpahari was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Gidhpuri,

Block- Palari, District- Raipur, who died in harness and petitioner has been

granted appointment on compassionate basis vide order dated 13.04.1998

(Annexure P/3). The said appointment has been given on certain terms and

conditions and in the condition No. 4, it has been mentioned that the

information given by the petitioner for appointment is completely true and

correct which will be verified by the petitioner herself and in case of any

wrong information being and proved, the appointment shall be put to end

without any notice. After death of her husband, in order to obtain the

1 (2024) 1 SCC 175

government employment, the petitioner applied for compassionate

appointment by moving application, in which her residential address was

given to be Qrt. No. 637, Deepak Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur P.O.

Ravigram Colony, District- Raipur and appointment on compassionate basis

was given to the petitioner vide order dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure P/3). He

further submits that after providing appointment on compassionate

appointment to the petitioner, the character of the petitioner was verified from

the concerned police station as per the residential address given by the

petitioner in the application form for compassionate appointment. A

communication/letter dated 15.10.1999 from Police Station- Palari, District-

Raipur was received to the effect that in P.S. Palari, a Crime No. 37/94 for

commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the

IPC was registered against the petitioner and others and the trial in the said

crime was still going on in the Court of the learned Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then it has been realized that at the time of

submitting the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has

given wrong information i.e., residential address, based upon which the

character verification of the petitioner has been done, whereas as per the

information received from the P.S.- Palari dated 15.10.1999, it has been found

that against the petitioner, a criminal case was pending and the petitioner has

deliberately and willfully not stated and mentioned this information and thus,

the petitioner has concealed this material fact of registration of crime against

her at Police Station- Palari which resulted into misleading of information by

the petitioner to the State government for obtaining the government

employment. When this fact came to the notice of the respondent authorities,

the petitioner was served with the show cause notice which the petitioner

replied on 08.1.2001 and upon being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by

the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2), the

services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. The

petitioner filed her acquittal order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.

1636/1999, but it is clear from termination order that services of the petitioner

has been terminated on the ground of concealment of the material fact of

registration of crime and submission of wrong information/residential address,

based upon which the character verification of the petitioner was done. Hence,

the reliance placed upon by the petitioner does not help to the petitioner in any

manner because the termination of the petitioner from service is not based

upon the conviction by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that

against the termination from service, the petitioner has submitted

representations from time to time which have duly been considered and

decided by the answering respondents vide impugned orders (Annexure P/1)

in the light of the circular dated 30.08.1993 issued by the erstwhile State of

Madhya Pradesh, Department of General Administration, in which it is

provided that the incumbent obtains the government employment by

submitting the wrong information and certificates etc., those should not be

remained in services, meaning thereby the services of such incumbent like the

petitioner should be removed immediately. The petitioner has not established

any cogent grounds warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the

instant petition being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the

threshold.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. It is an admitted position in this case that petitioner's husband namely late Shri

Balaram Bhatpahari was working in respondents' department as an Assistant

Teacher in Primary School Gidhpuri, Block- Palari, Raipur, Division- Raipur

(C.G.) and he died in harness while working as Assistant Teacher and

thereafter the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment. The

petitioner had been granted appointment on compassionate basis vide order

dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure P/3) and she joined her services on 21.04.1998 in

pursuance of the appointment order as would be evident from letter dated

21.04.1998 (Annexure P/4).

7. It is also not disputed that respondents issued show cause notice to the

petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in

the form seeking compassionate appointment and character certificate was

obtained, to which the petitioner gave her reply on 03.05.2000 (Annexure

P/6). Respondent authorities terminated the services of the petitioner vide

impugned order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) and representations of the

petitioner were also rejected by the respondent authorities vide Annexure P/1.

8. The petitioner filed a copy of her reply dated 03.05.2000 as Annexure P/6, in

which petitioner held as under:-

" ...कंडिका 2 के आरोप है की मैंने अपने आवेदन में पता गलत अंकित किया है जबकि मेरे आवेदन अवलोकन पत्र स्पष्ट होगा की मैंने अपने पति के मृत्यु पश्च्यात उनके मृत्यु स्थल का स्पष्ट उल्लेख करते हुए अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति मांगी थी I जिसमे मैंने शाला का उल्लेख था आज भी मैंने जो पूर्व में पता दिया था उसी स्थान पर मैं निवास कर रही हूँ I कंडिका 3 के बारे में निवेदन है कि { अनुक्रमांक फार्म } परशिष्ट पैरा 2 {क } दिनांक 15.1.1998 को दो गवाहों के समक्ष साथ साथ शपथ भर कर जो आवेदन मैंने प्रस्तुत किया है उसमें मैंने किसी प्रकार की असत्य जानकारी एवं तथ्यों को नहीं छुपाया है I...''

9. The petitioner has also filed a letter dated 29.11.1997 (Annexure P/7) issued

by the respondent authorities, in which petitioner's application was

recommended for the compassionate appointment and in the said letter,

petitioner's copy was also forwarded to the petitioner's address, which was

mentioned in Serial No. 3 and as per Serial No. 3 address of the petitioner was

as under:-

प्रतिलिपि :-

"3. श्रीमती बृजबाई भतपहरी स्व. राजेंद्र नगर दीपक कालोनी माकन न. 647 पो. रविग्राम जिला- रायपुर म. प्र "

So, it is evident from this document that in the year of 1997 respondent office

had address of petitioner as Rajendra Nagar, Deepak Colony Qtr. No. 647 PO.

Ravigram District- Raipur M.P.

10. It is vivid that the respondents did not file any documents with their reply,

though, the petitioner has also filed the letter dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure

P/10), and application dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P/11) in which she was

demanded the original documents/forms through RTI regarding her

compassionate appointment and termination, but it was informed by the

concerned authority that the information sought by the petitioner is not

available in the office, therefore, it is not possible to provide the information

as sought by the petitioner.

11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra),

held in paras 21, 30 & 31, which read as under:-

" 21. It is very clear that relevant and material evidence being, the deposition of PW-5/Raj Singh; the marksheet of 8th class of the appellant [enclosed to the chargesheet] and the original marksheet independently marked as Ex. D3 by the defence have been completely left out in the discussion and consideration. Inference has been drawn about the proof of the charges by ignoring crucial, relevant and material evidence which had come on record. The evidence of PW-5 Raj Singh and the marksheet enclosed in the documents annexed to the chargesheet and the original marksheet marked as Ex. D-3, were materials having a direct bearing on the charge. The Disciplinary Authority has merely reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. Equally so are the findings of the appellate authority. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere. It is

only to satisfy ourselves to this extent, that we have scrutinized the material to see as to what was reflected in the record. We are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserves to be quashed.

30. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.

31. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.484/2011 dated 05.09.2018. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As far as back wages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 50% of the back wages. The directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from today."

12. In the light of above judgment and the aforesaid discussion, in the present case

also respondents stated that services of the petitioner was not terminated on

the ground of criminal case, her services was terminated on the ground of

concealment of the material fact of registration of crime and submission of

wrong information/residential address, based upon which the character

verification of the petitioner was done. It is also evident from the documents

as filed by the petitioner that only show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner and her reply was not considered by the respondents authority. As

the Hon'ble Apex Court stated that it is well settled that if the findings of the

disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the

Court in judicial review can interfere and in the present case, it is quite evident

that respondent authorities did not file any documents regarding wrong