1 W.P.(S) No. 960 of 2005 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] 1. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha 2. Dhirendra Mishra...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The District Education Officer, Bokaro 4. The Headmaster, Ram Bilas + 2 School at Bermo, District-Bokaro......... Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepak K. Prasad, J.C. to G.P. III ------------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------ By Court: Challenging order dated 27.01.2005, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner no. 1 was appointed vide memo dated 02.12.1992 by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar and he joined the Aanti High School on 02.01.1993. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 was appointed vide memo dated 17.08.1992. The appointment was made pursuant to advertisement no. 1/1988. The petitioner no. 2 was posted as Assistant Teacher in Rosra, High School Samstipur. On
2 27.01.2005, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present proceeding. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under, 6. That the Director Secondary Education, Bihar Patna vide its confidential letter no. 1953 dt 7.7.2004 transmitted report to the Director (S.E.) Jharkhand, Ranchi that five teachers namely Shri Dihrendra Mishra and others four posted and working in Ram Bilas High Schoool, Bermo, Bokaro have been working with all their forge certificates. That further, it has also been intimated that neither their services have been recommended by the Vidyalaya Seva Board nor their appointment and transfer letters have been issued by the Director, Jharkhand. 7. That in response to the aforesaid letter of Director, Bihar a report vide memo No. 2525 dt. 7.10.2004 has been called for from D.E.O. Concerned, District Education Officer, Bokaro. 8. That District Education Officer, Bokaro in compliance to the aforesaid letter submitted a report of 15 teachers working in Ram Bilas High School, Bermo vide its memo No. 873 dt. 19.10.2004. 9. That the report transmitted by District Education Officer, Bokaro was reviewed at the Government level and consequently one Shri Raghuvansh Singh, the transferred Head Master during whose region these forged teachers' joining was accepted in school in question was put under suspension with
3 immediate effect side by side vide Memo No. 2 dt. 3.1.2005 by the impugned memo, the D.E.O was directed not to take work from these 15 teachers. Further D.E.O, Bokaro was also directed to step their salary call for explanation from these teachers and finally to submit report with his comment. Here it is humbly asserted that the names of these petitioners are mentioned in the list, the report transmitted by D.E.O vide Memo No. 873 dt. 19.10.2004. 10. That it is humbly asserted that the report of the D.E.O., Bokaro could not be received at the end of deponent after a lapse of one month as a result D.E.O. was sent reminder to submit report with the explanation of these so called teachers if filed and at the same time an open advertisement was also given in daily Newspaper where in these so called teachers were directed to submit their ex-planation before D.E.O., Bokaro latest by 25.2.05 and to appear before Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand Ranchi on 1.3.2005 with all relevant papers such as appointment letter and transfer/adjustment letters to establish and substantiate the genuinity of their claim. Here it is humbly asserted that on the date 1.3.05, the day fixed for examination of papers report of D.E.O was received but out of 15 so called teachers of the school in question only two persons appeared before Director. Here it is asserted that the appointment/transfer of these two teachers was Prima facie found genuine accordingly they were directed to continue to discharge their work with certain condition. Here it is humbly submitted that these two petitioners namely Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha and Shri Dhirendra Mishra did not appear on
4 0the date so fixed. 11. That it is humbly asserted that only two out of 15 so called teachers appeared before the Director so a second opportunity was also afforded to these so called teachers to appear before Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand on 18.3.05 with relevant papers in support of their claim. Here it is humbly asserted that out of 13 only seven of these so called teachers appeared on next date but these two petitioners did not turn up on the next date i.e. 18.3.2005 that reveals that these petitioners do not have relevant papers in support of their contention. That the explanation and the papers they have submitted before District Education Officer, Bokaro will be examined with its original lying with erstwhile State of Bihar. 5. An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 322 of 2011 has been filed by the respondents seeking vacation of interim order of status-quo passed by this Court on 17.03.2005. 6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.01.2005 indicates that the appointment of the petitioners and others was prima facie found suspect and forged. A copy of letter dated 03.01.2005 has been filed by the respondents in the present proceeding which indicates that a direction was issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand to the District Education officer, Bokaro not to pay salary to the petitioners and others. A copy of the enquiry report
5 dated 19.10.2004 has also been brought on record, a perusal of which indicates that the enquiry officer concluded that the petitioners and others may have been working fraudulently. An enquiry report dated 26.05.2005 has also been brought on record whereunder it is indicated that in view of status-quo order dated 17.03.2005, no decision has been taken with respect to the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the alleged enquiry conducted by the respondents, a report of which has been brought on record by the respondents as annexure-c to the counter-affidavit, was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. In the said enquiry report also only a suspicion has been raised in so far as, continuance of the petitioners in service is concerned. Even in the enquiry report dated 26.05.2005, nothing has been indicated which would render the appointment of the petitioners forged and illegal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, since an order of status-quo was passed on 17.03.2005, no order was passed against the petitioners with respect to these two persons. During the enquiry it has been suspected that they have been appointed fraudulently and therefore, the impugned order was passed. 9. I am of the opinion that the status-quo order dated 17.03.2005 has been misconstrued by the respondents. This
6 Court never prevented the respondents from conducting an enquiry with respect to the petitioners. As a matter of fact, the respondents have conducted enquiry with respect to other persons. In the present proceeding I do not find any material which would indicate that the appointment of the petitioners was illegal and they continued in service fraudulently. In fact, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been asserted that the original documents of the petitioners which are lying with the Government of Bihar, would be verified. The impugned order has been issued only on suspicion which cannot take place of proof. 10. In Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1978 SC 1277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 18. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, we may remind ourselves of the principles, in point, crystallised by judicial decisions. The first of these principles is that disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of a quasi-judicial character; therefore, the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence, i.e. evidential material which with some degree of definiteness points to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries. As pointed out by this Court in Union of India Vs. H. C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
7 27.01.2005 is quashed however, it would be open to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners after giving proper show-cause notice to the petitioners. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even after the order of 'status-quo' passed by this Court, the petitioners were not permitted to work. I find that the petitioners have not filed an application after order dated 17.03.2005, seeking further direction from this Court and therefore, it is made clear that the petitioners would not be entitled for any salary for the period he has not worked after the order of status-quo dated 17.03.2005 was passed. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 02.01.2014 Amit/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)