Raghbans Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3878 Jhar

                                                    1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Civil Review No.134 of 2019
         Raghbans Singh                            ......       .....           Petitioner
                                       Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand.
         2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, project
            Building, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
         3. The Director, Secondary Education Project Building, Government of
            Jharkhand, Ranchi Jharkhand. ......                 ..... Opp. Parties
                                       ---------

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

---------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajendra Krishan, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.A.G-IV Mr. Vijayant Verma, A.C. to AAG-IV

---------

08/22.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Writ petitioner is in review against the judgment in appeal rendered by the

learned Letters Patent Court dated 11th July, 2019. Writ petitioner working as Head

Master in Ram Vilas +2 High School, Bermo at Bokaro was dismissed from

service on the charge that he had accepted the joining of fake teachers without any

verification of their appointment /transfer letters and allowed them to take their

salary etc. In a departmental proceeding he was held guilty and terminated. The

learned Writ Court vide judgment dated 6 th November, 2015 dismissed the writ

petition holding as under:-

7. After having gone through the writ application, supplementary affidavit and the rivalized submissions, it appears that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:

(I) That in the instant case admittedly in pursuant to the charges enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of accepting the joining of fake teachers and helping them causing pecuniary loss to the Government. During enquiry it also came to the surface that the petitioner worked with the aforesaid fake teachers and was a part of the whole conspiracy while deliberately

accepting the joining of fake teachers and allowing them for payment of salary which is a serious misconduct, therefore, just punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner.

(II) In the instant case, there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of proceeding till its culmination nor the proceeding is based on no evidence, therefore, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with in the impugned order of punishment.

(III) In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based on the material on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310, specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below:

"15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ........."

8. Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated hereinabove, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal dated 29.04.2009, vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the order of the appellate authority dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

3. The learned Appellate Court upon hearing the parties and on consideration

of the grounds urged on the part of the appellant / present petitioner did not find

any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of the learned Writ Court and

refused to interfere in the findings of the departmental proceeding within the

limited scope of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held

as under:-

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant per se cannot be accepted, as it is the settled procedure that when transfer of a Government servant is made, one office copy of the transfer order is sent to the office where the employee is transferred. Thus, if any person shall be giving joining on the basis

of forged transfer order, the officer accepting the joining cannot be allowed to take the defence, that he had no means to verify whether the transfer order is fake or genuine. The petitioner had accepted the joining of fake persons and allowed them to continue in office. The fact however, remains that the petitioner though had taken part in a departmental proceeding, but had not adduced any evidence in support of his defence, and the impugned order shows that there was no irregularity in the entire departmental proceeding.

8. We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of these facts, the Hon'ble Single Judge was perfectly justified in not interfering with the findings of the departmental proceeding, keeping in view the limited scope in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in interfering in the departmental proceeding matters.

9. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 06.11.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in W.P.(S) No. 5648 of 2011, worth any interference in exercise of L.P.A. jurisdiction.

10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court

has on its own added reasons to support the grounds taken by the Writ Court while

dismissing the appeal. It is further submitted that the observation to the effect that

the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence in the

departmental proceeding are erroneous since it is for the prosecution to establish

the charge. It is submitted that perusal of enquiry report would show that no

evidence whatsoever was brought to establish the charge against the Headmaster. It

is further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly informed the Superior

Authority vide letter no. 192/95 dated 28.11.1995 and also followed up by letter

no. 193/95 dated 28.11.1995 (Annexure-10 & 11 to the writ petition). These letters

however do not appear to be in the nature of verification exercise.

5. Be that as it may, the grounds taken for review of the impugned judgment

do not come within the fold of the grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of the

C.P.C or the principles akin thereto which are applicable to the writ proceedings.

Observation made at paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment are in the nature of

the opinion of the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner cannot seek reopening of

the findings rendered by the learned Writ Court or the Appellate Court in review

jurisdiction where the scope of interference is limited to the errors apparent on the

face of record which can be discerned without much effort. The latent errors which

can be discovered after lengthy arguments are not such which constitute a ground

for review of the impugned judgment. Such findings if any on facts can be

corrected in appeal only. As such, we find that no grounds of review are made out

by the petitioner.

6. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Fahim/Amardeep/