WPSS/1798/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 1515 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPSS No. 1798 of 2019
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by District Education Officer (Elementary), Pauri Garhwal, whereby her services as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, have been terminated w.e.f. 30.05.2018.

It transpires that Deputy Education Officer, Pokhra, Pauri Garhwal had placed the petitioner under suspension, vide order dated 30.05.2018. Along with the said order, a charge-sheet was also issued to petitioner with the allegation that she secured appointment as Assistant Teacher, on the basis of forged B.Ed. degree.

Petitioner refuted the charge levelled against her and requested that her B.Ed. certificate may be verified from the University.

Report of Enquiry Officer dated 06.07.2018 is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer has held that petitioner has not produced any evidence to dispel the doubt created on her B.Ed. degree, therefore, the charge is found to be proved. Enquiry Officer thus recommended that appropriate action may be taken against petitioner for securing appointment, based on a forged document. Thus, District Education Officer (Elementary) passed the impugned termination order on 16.05.2019.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner has been removed from service, based on a specific charge, therefore provisions contained in Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003 were required to be followed. He further submits that mandatory requirement of said Rules were not followed, especially those contained in Rule 7 thereof. He further submits that the report of Enquiry Officer is absolutely lacunic, as it does not indicate any reason for holding the petitioner guilty. He further submits that Enquiry Officer has committed manifest error of law in shifting the burden of proof upon petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court on 21.04.2022 in WPSS No. 664 of 2020 and he submits that the present writ petition may be decided in terms of the said judgment.

Learned Brief Holder appearing for respondents while supports the impugned order by submitting that Special Investigation Team constituted by the State Government, after due investigation, found that no record regarding B.Ed. degree of petitioner is available in the concerned University, i.e. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and against roll number indicated in B.Ed. degree of petitioner, name of one Mr. Arjun Kumar Rao was mentioned, which reveals that petitioner has misused the B.Ed. degree awarded to Mr. Arjun Kumar Rao.

Be that as it may, since the mandatory provision contained in Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003, as amended in 2010, has not been followed while holding departmental enquiry against petitioner, therefore, on this short point alone, the impugned order passed against petitioner is liable to be set aside.

Since identical question has been decided by this Court in WPSS No. 664 of 2020, which fact has not been disputed by learned Brief Holder, therefore, writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 21.04.2022 rendered in WPSS No. 664 of 2020. The impugned order dated 16.05.2019 is set-aside. However, the Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner as per the relevant provision of Uttarakhand Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2003.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.05.2022 Navin