Jharkhand High Court
Ram Kumar Prasad Mahtha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:16621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5387 of 2011
----------
Ram Kumar Prasad Mahtha, son of Sri Sahdeo Prasad Mahtha, resident
of village Banderbela, P.O. Padma, P.S. Padma, District Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. &
P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. The Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.
Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG-I
----------
C.A.V. on 17.04.2025 Pronounced on 23/06/2025
Deepak Roshan, J. Heard the parties.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner
praying therein for quashing of the order dated 02.07.2009
(Annexure-8), passed by District Superintendent of Education,
Hazaribagh; by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The Petitioner has further assailed the appellate order dated
02.08.2011, passed in service appeal no. 89/2009 by which the
dismissal order was affirmed. Petitioner has further prayed for a
direction upon the concerned Respondent to reinstate him in service
with all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the
petitioner applied for an examination advertised through JPSC for
selection of Primary Teachers. After successfully getting through the
selection process, the name of the petitioner appeared in the 2nd merit
list. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to the petitioner vide
memo no. 3714 dated 12.11.2005.
The pleadings further reveal that when the certificates
submitted by the petitioner were sent for verification to the Bihar
2025:JHHC:16621
School Examination Board (herein after to be referred as Board) the
Board informed that the teachers training certificate, produced by the
petitioner was fake and no such certificate has been issued in favour
of the petitioner by the Board.
On the basis of this report, a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner, to which he duly replied and requested for re-
verification. Thereafter, D.S.E. Hazaribagh again sent letter dated
16.05.2006 to the Board to re-verify the same. Thereafter, the Board
issued another report dated 01.06.2006, whereby, it was certified in
favour of the petitioner, whose roll number and roll code was
291/1101, for which certificate was issued.
In the meantime, the District Superintendent Education also
called for a report from the Principal, Teachers Education College,
Ranchi, and in reply to such requisition, the Principal had given a
letter and stated that the Petitioner had never been a student of the
said College.
4. Relying upon the report of the Principal, without considering
the re-verification report of the Board, the District Superintendent,
without issuing fresh show cause notice, served a dismissal order to
the Petitioner. Thereafter, appellate authority confirmed the dismissal
order. Being aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner has preferred the
present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned
order of termination is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground
that the D.S.E has subsequently written a letter to the Primary
Teachers Education College, Dumardagga, Ranchi and the said
College has given certificate on 21.03.2009 stating therein, that the
Petitioner was not a student of the said College. However, all the
Primary Teachers Education Colleges have ceased to exist since the
year 1992 after declaration by the erstwhile State of Bihar that there
will be no requirement of getting Teachers Training from the Primary
Teachers Education College for getting appointment as Primary
Teachers in the school. Therefore, there is no possibility of issuance of
2025:JHHC:16621
certificate by the said College in the month of March, 2009 and hence
the said certificate issued by the Principal of the concerned College
itself is not genuine; and reliance upon the said certificate in passing
the order of dismissal is absolutely without any application of mind
and, as such, the impugned order of termination is fit to be quashed
and set aside and also the appellate order which has affirmed it.
6. He further submits that the impugned order of dismissal has
been passed without even verifying the very genuineness of the report
which led to the Petitioner's dismissal. He submits that the person
who made the endorsement and signed as Principal of Primary
Teacher Education College, Dumardagga, Ranchi was not at all the
Principal on the date of his report because the Institution was not even
in existence on the said date.
7. He further submits that upon re-verification, Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna issued another report, as contained in letter
no. 589 dated 01.06.2006, whereby and whereunder, it was certified in
favour of the petitioner; however, the said report was not at all been
considered by respondent authorities.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the
appointment letter it was categorically stated that if the educational
and pre-educational certificates and other documents submitted by the
candidate are verified by the concerned Board or Institution and any
certificate or other document is found to be fake, then his/her
appointment will be cancelled at any point of time, without any notice
and legal action will be taken against him/her. Also, if after
investigation, it is found that they have not received training from a
recognized training institute, their appointment will be terminated at
any time without notice and legal action will be taken against them
and as such the action taken against the Petitioner was fully in
compliance of the conditions as mentioned in the appointment letter
by which the Petitioner was governed. Therefore, the order of
dismissal is fully sustainable in the eyes of law.
2025:JHHC:16621
9. She further submits that certificates submitted by the Petitioner
were sent for verification and two contradictory reports were received.
Upon having received two contradicting information, the entire matter
was placed before the District Education Establishment Committee,
where reports were called from Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), of the
Board and to the Principal of Primary Teachers Education College,
Dumardaga, Ranchi which reported against the Petitioner.
10. She lastly relied upon judgement rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v Sate of Kerela & others1
wherein it has been held that appointments obtained through fake
certificates are void ab initio, creating no legal rights.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, it
transpires that the Petitioner was issued appointment letter for the post
of Assistant Teacher vide memo no. 3714 dated 12.11.2005 and in
pursuance thereof, he started discharging his duties in the concerned
school and the certificates submitted by the Petitioner were sent for
verification to the Board which was replied by the Board vide letter
dated 09.04.2006 informing that the teachers training certificate
produced by the Petitioner was fake and no such certificate has been
issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Board.
12. On the basis of the report submitted by the Board, a show cause
notice was issued to the Petitioner, to which he replied that the
certificate issued by the Board is genuine and he requested to re-
verify the same.
Upon re-verification, the Board issued another report, dated
01.06.2006, whereby and whereunder, it was certified in favour of the
Petitioner. However, the same was not considered by Respondents and
upon having received two contradicting information, the entire matter
was placed before the District Establishment Committee where it was
decided to send for verification of letter no. 589 dated 01.06.2006 and
letters in this regard were sent to the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance),
(2004) 2 SCC 105
2025:JHHC:16621
Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and to the Principal of
Primary Teachers Education College, Dumardagga, Ranchi.
The Principal of the concerned College reported vide letter no.
1109 dated 21.03.2009 that the Petitioner was never enrolled in the
said institution. After considering the report of the Principal of
Primary Teachers Education College, Dumardagga, Ranchi the
District Establishment Committee, Hazaribagh decided to terminate
the petitioner from service vide memo no. 1307 dated 02.07.2009.
13. The appellate authority in its order has simply relied upon the
Board's letter dated 15.09.2009 and also the report of the Principal of
the concerned College dated 21.03.2009 that the Petitioner was never
enrolled in the said institution which has already been controverted in
writ application that the said College had already been closed in the
year 1992 by the orders of the erstwhile State of Bihar; then under
what circumstances in the year 2009, the Principal of the said college
had issued a certificate.
14. Another aspect of the case is that after perusing the impugned
order, it is crystal clear that the order is stigmatic in nature; as such, as
per the settled proposition of law, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in catena of judgments that if an order is stigmatic in nature; proper
enquiry should be conducted. In the instant case, it appears that by
giving a show cause notice and taking a reply was a mere formality to
show that natural justice has been complied with.
15. In the instant case, impugned order has been passed on the
report of the concerned Principal of Primary Teachers Education
College, Dumardaga, Ranchi and now the law is well settled that a
charge against an employee of having committed fraud in obtaining
the appointment is required to be proved in a duly constituted
departmental proceeding and without such enquiry the services of
such an employee cannot be terminated.
Reliance in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered
by this Court in Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & ors2;
2007 SCC OnLine Jhar 247
2025:JHHC:16621
for brevity, relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:
37. In P.S.E.B v. Lila Singh, (2007 (2) AIR Jhar R 885), supra, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has clearly held that a charge against an employee of having committed
fraud in obtaining the appointment is required to be proved in a duly constituted
departmental proceeding and without such enquiry the services of such an
employee cannot be terminated.
38. In Sumitra Gope v. State of Jharkhand, this Court while dealing with the case
of termination of services on the charge of attaching forged certificate with the
application, held that the termination order without serving any charge sheet,
without holding an enquiry and without giving proper opportunity of defending
the delinquent was arbitrary and contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India. In paragraph 6 of the said decision this Court held as follows:--
"6. I find much substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Admittedly, no charge-sheet was served. There was no
departmental enquiry on the alleged charge of submitting a forged
certificate. The petitioner was not given proper opportunity to defend
herself. She was only-given a notice informing the allegation which she had
denied. Thereafter, without establishing the charge by adducing evidence,
the punishment of dismissal has been imposed. The respondents have thus
acted contrary to the procedure established by law as well as contrary to
the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and have arbitrarily
issued the impugned order of dismissal dated 9-2-2004, causing serious
civil consequences to the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. After going through the aforesaid judgement, it is crystal clear
that this Court after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
has, in unequivocal term, held that fraud in obtaining the appointment
is required to be proved in a duly constituted departmental proceeding
and without such enquiry, the services of such an employee cannot be
terminated.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment passed in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v Sate of Kerela & others
(supra), which is not applicable in the present case as in that case
fraud was proved; however, in the present case the re-verification
report dated 01.06.2006 wherein the certificate in question was found
to be in favour of the Petitioner was duly issued by the Bihar School
Examination Board and accordingly, since the order of termination is
stigmatic in nature having far reaching effects in future, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.07.2009 passed by
District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh and the appellate
order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner, North
Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
It goes without saying that since the order of termination has
been quashed and set aside; the Petitioner shall be reinstated in
2025:JHHC:16621
service forthwith. However, the Respondents would be at liberty to
hold a departmental proceeding against this Petitioner and pass a fresh
order, if so advised, after following due process of law.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
kunal/-
AFR
