The Allahabad High Court has upheld the order canceling the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School due to fake documents and has rejected the challenge petition.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Shiv Kumar Mishra.
By means of the petition petitioner has challenged order dated 20.07.2023 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Deoria whereby petitioner’s appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School was cancelled as after inquiry it was found that he got appointment on basis of forged educational documents.
It is not in dispute that petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Harnahi Chakarwa Bahordas, District Deoria on 24.12.2005. Later on he was promoted as Headmaster on 15.12.2008. In the year 2015 on a complaint that petitioner got appointment on basis of forged educational documents, an inquiry was initiated and office of District Basic Education Officer, Deoria vide order dated 09.11.2015 verified the documents and found that there was no ambiguity and documents were forwarded for further verification.
Girijesh Tiwari, Counsel for petitioner, submitted that even after above order whereby documents submitted by petitioner at the time of appointment were found genuine still proceedings were initiated and on basis of police investigation First Information Report was lodged against petitioner on 16.07.2022 wherein petitioner is on anticipatory bail and according to instructions investigation is still pending.
Counsel for petitioner further submitted that with mala fide intention of respondents, he was put under suspension vide order dated 13.04.2023 on basis of report of Additional Superintendent of Police (STF) dated 01.04.2021 and 15 days time was granted to petitioner to submit his reply. A charge sheet dated 05.06.2023 was served upon petitioner by Inquiry Officer levelling five charges against him.
It is further case of petitioner that he has submitted an application dated 15.06.2023 that documents relied in support of charges levelled against him be provided and has denied all charges. The request was repeated by another letter dated 14.07.2023, however no documents were supplied to petitioner.
Counsel further submitted that without even serving copy of inquiry report dated 01.07.2023, the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 20.07.2023 cancelled the appointment of petitioner from its initial date.
Counsel vehemently submitted that aforesaid exercise is contrary to principle of natural justice and due procedure as prescribed under relevant rules was not followed. Petitioner was not provided copy of inquiry report, therefore, punishment order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Per contra, L.M Singh, Standing Counsel and Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Advocate appearing for Respondents-2 and 3, have submitted that petitioner was provided various opportunities by issuing repeated notices, however, he failed to submit any reply even on pointed queries and thereafter inquiry was conducted and on basis of police report also all charges were found proved against the petitioner.
Standing Counsel has referred the detailed inquiry report in this regard which is annexed alongwith counter affidavit.
They further submitted that inquiry was conducted in accordance with due procedure and charge sheet was served upon petitioner, however, he has not replied to the charge sheet, therefore, on basis of material available, the Inquiry Officer has assigned reasons that charges were proved and thereafter appointment of petitioner was cancelled by disciplinary authority.
Counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 3 has referred para 12 of counter affidavit that even inquiry report dated 01.07.2023 was provided to petitioner. He further submitted that in a case where petitioner has submitted forged documents even proper inquiry is not required to be conducted, whereas in the present case petitioner, despite repeated notice has failed to submit any reply to the pointed queries raised in charge sheet as well as notices.
The Court noted that,
The first issue before the Court is to consider the effect of order dated 09.11.2015 whereby prima facie documents of petitioner were found genuine.
It is the argument of petitioner that since he was not found guilty in aforesaid order, therefore, any subsequent inquiry is nothing but a case of double jeopardy. However, petitioner has missed to see the last portion of said order wherein it was mentioned that documents were forwarded for further verification and he was considered to be not guilty till further report. Therefore, no finality was attained with regard to genuineness of documents, hence, it is not a case of double jeopardy.
Second issue before the Court is, whether inquiry conducted by respondents was dehors of relevant rules or not.
The Court said that it is well settled that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Petitioner has not submitted any document which could contradict the findings returned by Inquiry Officer as well as by disciplinary authority that forged educational documents were provided by petitioner at the time of his appointment.
“In the case charges levelled against petitioner were found proved that he has committed forgery and submitted forged documents. Petitioner has failed to brought on record any document which could contradict the reasons given in inquiry report as well as in impugned order.
llaThe issue of not providing inquiry report to petitioner, though it has been denied by respondents, would be only an irregularity and not illegality since petitioner has not even made reply to repeated notices as well as above referred specific queries and also it is a case of proved fraud, therefore, petitioner is failed to demonstrate how any prejudice is caused to him due to non supply of inquiry report (See, para 12 of Union Bank of India vs Vishwa Mohan, (1998)4 SCC 310). Therefore, a person such as petitioner, who has procured appointment as Teacher on basis of forged educational documents, cannot be entitled for any sympathy and he is required to be dealt with strictly. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that in given circumstances even there is an irregularity of not providing inquiry report, still petitioner has no case to quash impugned order of cancellation of appointment being void ab initio, since he has committed forgery and submitted forged documents”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.