Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNDRIKA SINGH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. UP GOVT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mundrika Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Up Govt. & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 3469 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 2296 (2 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                             

                                                                          Judgment reserved on 25.8.2005

                                                                          Judgment ready on 27.8.2005

                                                                           Judgment delivered on 2.9.2005

               Civil Misc.Writ Petition no. 3469 of 2002

         Mundrika Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the petitioner: - Sri A.K. Singh and Sri B.Lal, Advocates

Counsel for the respondents:- Standing Counsel

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 ( Annexure-13) during the pendency of writ petition before this Court;

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner in the department;

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the regular salary month to month with all back wages since due date to the petitioner;

(d) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(e) To award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Irrigation Supervisor in the year 1994. His services were terminated on account of fabrication of certain orders of transfer and appointment on the basis of which he had joined the department. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner  who arrested in consequent to thereof and was ultimately bailed out by this Court.

Since the petitioner was not being paid salary since June, 1999 onwards, he filed Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 Mundirka Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow  to himself look into the matter and pass appropriate reasoned orders taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner and his conduct within a period of 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It was however, made clear that this Court had not judged or viewed the controversy on merits and the respondent concerned i.e. Engineer-in-Chief shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law. The representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.99 and 14.4.2000 were decided on merits by the Engineer-in-Chief by order dated 20th July, 2001 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

In pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000  the Engineer-in-Chief has recorded a finding of fact  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Kanhar Nirman Khand-I ,Pipari, Sonebhadra  on basis of forged and fabricated documents. Since he was not appointed by the department in accordance with law but had joined the department on the basis of forged and fabricated documents he was not entitled to any relief sought in the representation and also he had no legal right to claim any allowance or dues from the department. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:-

             " ;kph dk mDr dFku iw.kZr;k vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS D;ksafd tc og foHkkx dk deZpkjh gh ugha gS] rks mlds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus  vFkok u gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fVIi.kh djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A bl vk/kkj ij ;kph dks dksbZ Hkh Dyse fu;ekuqlkj vuqeU; ugha gSA **

            vr% Jh eqfnzdk flag ;kno  dk izR;kosnu fnukad 14-4-2000 mDr fooj.kkuqlkj lE;d fopkjksijkUr ,rn~okjk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA **

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed interalia  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Flood Karya Division-II, Ballia vide order dated 5.11.1994 and was transferred to Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra  vide order dated 15.9.98 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow. He was relieved from the office of Executive Engineer, Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia for joining in the office of Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra and that the service book and other relevant papers were sent by the parental department to the office of respondent no.2. It is further averred in the supplementary affidavit that before filing the instant writ petition the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 for quashing of the charge sheet dated 4.11.99 submitted against him in case crime no. 311 of 1999, under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC  P.S. Pipari, District Sonebhadra.  In the said case the petitioner had impleaded Sri Rohit Sinha, who was then posted as Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand Pipari, Sonebhadra as opposite party no.2. Counter affidavit is also said to have been filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 and that from the counter affidavit it is established that the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the above noted writ petition contains false and distorted version and further that the petitioner's appointment and transfer are genuine and the reasons assigned in the order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief dated 20.7.2001 are incorrect and unsustainable. It is also averred that the counter affidavit filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Case also falsifies the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the present writ petition and that the case of the petitioner is also supported by   order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Ballia as well as letter dated 9.2.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer,Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari, Sonebhadra.

The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the respondents had illegally stopped taking work from him w.e.f. 14.4.2000 without giving him opportunity of hearing or to show cause. Further ground taken in the writ petition by the petitioner is that he was appointed in Barh Karya Division-II Ballia and he was not appointed in Drainage Division, Ballia but no query has been made by the respondents from Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia where he had been appointed.  It is submitted that the petitioner having been released on bail by the Court there was no justifiable ground for the respondents for not taking work from him and that the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 has been passed by the respondents without application of mind and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that all the relevant documents regarding services of the Government employees reserved in the parental department on initial appointment place but in the case of the petitioner the respondents deliberately and knowingly made the enquiry from the other division where his record was not available, hence the conclusions arrived at by the Appointing authority that the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of a forged and fictitious document deserves to be quashed.  

The standing counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in paras 7, 8, 11, 19,20,23,25 and 28 of the counter affidavit.

In paras 7, 8 and 11 it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and  the appointment letter  appended with the writ petition is fully corroborated from the letter dated 13.7.99 and that the Superintending Engineer had directed the Executive Engineer to permit the petitioner to join his duties because by that time it was not in the knowledge of the Superintending Engineer that the transfer order is fictitious but on verification the transfer order was found to be fictitious and fabricated document.

In paras 19 and 20 it is averred that since the appointment order and transfer order of the petitioner were found to be fictitious, therefore, respondents have stopped taking work from the petitioner and his services were terminated and further that as the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia was abolished and was merged in Drainage Division, Ballia the entire papers of Flood Works Division-II, Ballia were available in Drainage Division, Ballia and hence the verification was made from Drainage Division Ballia and therefore, there was no question of verification from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia.

 In paras 23, 25 and 28 it is stated that the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No. 1456 of 2000. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief vide order dated 20.7.2001 after considering the entire material available on record and the information in this regard was also sent to the petitioner vide registered letters dated 23.7.2001 and 29.7.2001. The petitioner was never appointed in Kanhar Construction Division, Sonebhadra and his transfer order was fictitious.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner claims appointment on the basis of transfer in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia where there is no record. He claims to have been transferred from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia to Kanhar Nirman Khan, Pipari, Sonebhadra but was not permitted to join there and on verification and in pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 it was found by the Engineer-in-Chief that he was not an employee of the department. It is also an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer investigated the matter in pursuance of the FIR lodged in case crime no. 311 of 1999 under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC and submitted charge sheet interlia that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud.

 From the copy of the counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 filed along with supplementary affidavit on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance it is evident that it does not support the case of the petitioner.

It is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner had been paid salary believing that he had been bonafide appointed  but  when it came to light that  he had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fictitious documents an investigation was made by the Engineer-in-Chief in pursuance of the orders of this Court, he found that the petitioner was never appointed in the department, hence it can not be said that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 aforesaid support the case of the petitioner.

It appears to me  that the petitioner had worked in this department on the basis of fabricated documents and as such the letter dated 27.1.2001 can not be given much importance because if a person can  fabricate papers showing himself to be appointed in Government department,  he can also manipulate the record by making  entry in the Dispatch Register showing dispatch of  letter dated 27.1.2001 in which it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia instead of Drainage Khand, Ballia.

It is evident from the record that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and all the records of the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia upon its closure had been sent to the Drainage department, hence enquiry was properly made from the department where the records of Flood Works Division-II,Ballia had been sent and from there  the documents supplied by the petitioner were got verified.  It also appears from the record that on verification it was revealed that the petitioner was never appointed as claimed by him.

In my opinion, it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Dated

CPP/-

                                                                                                             

                                                                          Judgment reserved on 25.8.2005

                                                                          Judgment ready on 27.8.2005

                                                                           Judgment delivered on 2.9.2005

               Civil Misc.Writ Petition no. 3469 of 2002

         Mundrika Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the petitioner: - Sri A.K. Singh and Sri B.Lal, Advocates

Counsel for the respondents:- Standing Counsel

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 ( Annexure-13) during the pendency of writ petition before this Court;

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner in the department;

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the regular salary month to month with all back wages since due date to the petitioner;

(d) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(e) To award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Irrigation Supervisor in the year 1994. His services were terminated on account of fabrication of certain orders of transfer and appointment on the basis of which he had joined the department. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner  who arrested in consequent to thereof and was ultimately bailed out by this Court.

Since the petitioner was not being paid salary since June, 1999 onwards, he filed Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 Mundirka Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow  to himself look into the matter and pass appropriate reasoned orders taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner and his conduct within a period of 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It was however, made clear that this Court had not judged or viewed the controversy on merits and the respondent concerned i.e. Engineer-in-Chief shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law. The representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.99 and 14.4.2000 were decided on merits by the Engineer-in-Chief by order dated 20th July, 2001 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

In pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000  the Engineer-in-Chief has recorded a finding of fact  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Kanhar Nirman Khand-I ,Pipari, Sonebhadra  on basis of forged and fabricated documents. Since he was not appointed by the department in accordance with law but had joined the department on the basis of forged and fabricated documents he was not entitled to any relief sought in the representation and also he had no legal right to claim any allowance or dues from the department. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:-

             " ;kph dk mDr dFku iw.kZr;k vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS D;ksafd tc og foHkkx dk deZpkjh gh ugha gS] rks mlds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus  vFkok u gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fVIi.kh djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A bl vk/kkj ij ;kph dks dksbZ Hkh Dyse fu;ekuqlkj vuqeU; ugha gSA **

            vr% Jh eqfnzdk flag ;kno  dk izR;kosnu fnukad 14-4-2000 mDr fooj.kkuqlkj lE;d fopkjksijkUr ,rn~okjk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA **

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed interalia  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Flood Karya Division-II, Ballia vide order dated 5.11.1994 and was transferred to Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra  vide order dated 15.9.98 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow. He was relieved from the office of Executive Engineer, Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia for joining in the office of Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra and that the service book and other relevant papers were sent by the parental department to the office of respondent no.2. It is further averred in the supplementary affidavit that before filing the instant writ petition the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 for quashing of the charge sheet dated 4.11.99 submitted against him in case crime no. 311 of 1999, under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC  P.S. Pipari, District Sonebhadra.  In the said case the petitioner had impleaded Sri Rohit Sinha, who was then posted as Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand Pipari, Sonebhadra as opposite party no.2. Counter affidavit is also said to have been filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 and that from the counter affidavit it is established that the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the above noted writ petition contains false and distorted version and further that the petitioner's appointment and transfer are genuine and the reasons assigned in the order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief dated 20.7.2001 are incorrect and unsustainable. It is also averred that the counter affidavit filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Case also falsifies the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the present writ petition and that the case of the petitioner is also supported by   order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Ballia as well as letter dated 9.2.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer,Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari, Sonebhadra.

The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the respondents had illegally stopped taking work from him w.e.f. 14.4.2000 without giving him opportunity of hearing or to show cause. Further ground taken in the writ petition by the petitioner is that he was appointed in Barh Karya Division-II Ballia and he was not appointed in Drainage Division, Ballia but no query has been made by the respondents from Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia where he had been appointed.  It is submitted that the petitioner having been released on bail by the Court there was no justifiable ground for the respondents for not taking work from him and that the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 has been passed by the respondents without application of mind and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that all the relevant documents regarding services of the Government employees reserved in the parental department on initial appointment place but in the case of the petitioner the respondents deliberately and knowingly made the enquiry from the other division where his record was not available, hence the conclusions arrived at by the Appointing authority that the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of a forged and fictitious document deserves to be quashed.  

The standing counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in paras 7, 8, 11, 19,20,23,25 and 28 of the counter affidavit.

In paras 7, 8 and 11 it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and  the appointment letter  appended with the writ petition is fully corroborated from the letter dated 13.7.99 and that the Superintending Engineer had directed the Executive Engineer to permit the petitioner to join his duties because by that time it was not in the knowledge of the Superintending Engineer that the transfer order is fictitious but on verification the transfer order was found to be fictitious and fabricated document.

In paras 19 and 20 it is averred that since the appointment order and transfer order of the petitioner were found to be fictitious, therefore, respondents have stopped taking work from the petitioner and his services were terminated and further that as the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia was abolished and was merged in Drainage Division, Ballia the entire papers of Flood Works Division-II, Ballia were available in Drainage Division, Ballia and hence the verification was made from Drainage Division Ballia and therefore, there was no question of verification from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia.

 In paras 23, 25 and 28 it is stated that the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No. 1456 of 2000. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief vide order dated 20.7.2001 after considering the entire material available on record and the information in this regard was also sent to the petitioner vide registered letters dated 23.7.2001 and 29.7.2001. The petitioner was never appointed in Kanhar Construction Division, Sonebhadra and his transfer order was fictitious.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner claims appointment on the basis of transfer in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia where there is no record. He claims to have been transferred from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia to Kanhar Nirman Khan, Pipari, Sonebhadra but was not permitted to join there and on verification and in pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 it was found by the Engineer-in-Chief that he was not an employee of the department. It is also an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer investigated the matter in pursuance of the FIR lodged in case crime no. 311 of 1999 under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC and submitted charge sheet interlia that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud.

 From the copy of the counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 filed along with supplementary affidavit on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance it is evident that it does not support the case of the petitioner.

It is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner had been paid salary believing that he had been bonafide appointed  but  when it came to light that  he had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fictitious documents an investigation was made by the Engineer-in-Chief in pursuance of the orders of this Court, he found that the petitioner was never appointed in the department, hence it can not be said that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 aforesaid support the case of the petitioner.

It appears to me  that the petitioner had worked in this department on the basis of fabricated documents and as such the letter dated 27.1.2001 can not be given much importance because if a person can  fabricate papers showing himself to be appointed in Government department,  he can also manipulate the record by making  entry in the Dispatch Register showing dispatch of  letter dated 27.1.2001 in which it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia instead of Drainage Khand, Ballia.

It is evident from the record that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and all the records of the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia upon its closure had been sent to the Drainage department, hence enquiry was properly made from the department where the records of Flood Works Division-II,Ballia had been sent and from there  the documents supplied by the petitioner were got verified.  It also appears from the record that on verification it was revealed that the petitioner was never appointed as claimed by him.

In my opinion, it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Dated

CPP/-

                                                                                                             

                                                                          Judgment reserved on 25.8.2005

                                                                          Judgment ready on 27.8.2005

                                                                           Judgment delivered on 2.9.2005

               Civil Misc.Writ Petition no. 3469 of 2002

         Mundrika Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the petitioner: - Sri A.K. Singh and Sri B.Lal, Advocates

Counsel for the respondents:- Standing Counsel

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 ( Annexure-13) during the pendency of writ petition before this Court;

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner in the department;

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the regular salary month to month with all back wages since due date to the petitioner;

(d) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(e) To award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that he was appointed on the post of Irrigation Supervisor in the year 1994. His services were terminated on account of fabrication of certain orders of transfer and appointment on the basis of which he had joined the department. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner  who arrested in consequent to thereof and was ultimately bailed out by this Court.

Since the petitioner was not being paid salary since June, 1999 onwards, he filed Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 Mundirka Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow  to himself look into the matter and pass appropriate reasoned orders taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner and his conduct within a period of 3 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It was however, made clear that this Court had not judged or viewed the controversy on merits and the respondent concerned i.e. Engineer-in-Chief shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law. The representations of the petitioner dated 9.8.99 and 14.4.2000 were decided on merits by the Engineer-in-Chief by order dated 20th July, 2001 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

In pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000  the Engineer-in-Chief has recorded a finding of fact  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Kanhar Nirman Khand-I ,Pipari, Sonebhadra  on basis of forged and fabricated documents. Since he was not appointed by the department in accordance with law but had joined the department on the basis of forged and fabricated documents he was not entitled to any relief sought in the representation and also he had no legal right to claim any allowance or dues from the department. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:-

             " ;kph dk mDr dFku iw.kZr;k vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS D;ksafd tc og foHkkx dk deZpkjh gh ugha gS] rks mlds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus  vFkok u gksus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fVIi.kh djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A bl vk/kkj ij ;kph dks dksbZ Hkh Dyse fu;ekuqlkj vuqeU; ugha gSA **

            vr% Jh eqfnzdk flag ;kno  dk izR;kosnu fnukad 14-4-2000 mDr fooj.kkuqlkj lE;d fopkjksijkUr ,rn~okjk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA **

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed interalia  that the petitioner was appointed as Irrigation Supervisor in Flood Karya Division-II, Ballia vide order dated 5.11.1994 and was transferred to Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra  vide order dated 15.9.98 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow. He was relieved from the office of Executive Engineer, Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia for joining in the office of Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari,Sonebhadra and that the service book and other relevant papers were sent by the parental department to the office of respondent no.2. It is further averred in the supplementary affidavit that before filing the instant writ petition the petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 for quashing of the charge sheet dated 4.11.99 submitted against him in case crime no. 311 of 1999, under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC  P.S. Pipari, District Sonebhadra.  In the said case the petitioner had impleaded Sri Rohit Sinha, who was then posted as Executive Engineer, Kanhar Nirman Khand Pipari, Sonebhadra as opposite party no.2. Counter affidavit is also said to have been filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5564 of 2001 and that from the counter affidavit it is established that the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the above noted writ petition contains false and distorted version and further that the petitioner's appointment and transfer are genuine and the reasons assigned in the order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief dated 20.7.2001 are incorrect and unsustainable. It is also averred that the counter affidavit filed by Sri Rohit Sinha in Criminal Misc. Case also falsifies the counter affidavit of Sri Sukh Ram filed in the present writ petition and that the case of the petitioner is also supported by   order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Ballia as well as letter dated 9.2.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer,Kanhar Nirman Khand-I, Pipari, Sonebhadra.

The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the respondents had illegally stopped taking work from him w.e.f. 14.4.2000 without giving him opportunity of hearing or to show cause. Further ground taken in the writ petition by the petitioner is that he was appointed in Barh Karya Division-II Ballia and he was not appointed in Drainage Division, Ballia but no query has been made by the respondents from Barh Karya Khand-II, Ballia where he had been appointed.  It is submitted that the petitioner having been released on bail by the Court there was no justifiable ground for the respondents for not taking work from him and that the impugned order dated 20.7.2001 has been passed by the respondents without application of mind and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that all the relevant documents regarding services of the Government employees reserved in the parental department on initial appointment place but in the case of the petitioner the respondents deliberately and knowingly made the enquiry from the other division where his record was not available, hence the conclusions arrived at by the Appointing authority that the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of a forged and fictitious document deserves to be quashed.  

The standing counsel has placed reliance upon the averments made in paras 7, 8, 11, 19,20,23,25 and 28 of the counter affidavit.

In paras 7, 8 and 11 it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and  the appointment letter  appended with the writ petition is fully corroborated from the letter dated 13.7.99 and that the Superintending Engineer had directed the Executive Engineer to permit the petitioner to join his duties because by that time it was not in the knowledge of the Superintending Engineer that the transfer order is fictitious but on verification the transfer order was found to be fictitious and fabricated document.

In paras 19 and 20 it is averred that since the appointment order and transfer order of the petitioner were found to be fictitious, therefore, respondents have stopped taking work from the petitioner and his services were terminated and further that as the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia was abolished and was merged in Drainage Division, Ballia the entire papers of Flood Works Division-II, Ballia were available in Drainage Division, Ballia and hence the verification was made from Drainage Division Ballia and therefore, there was no question of verification from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia.

 In paras 23, 25 and 28 it is stated that the petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No. 1456 of 2000. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief vide order dated 20.7.2001 after considering the entire material available on record and the information in this regard was also sent to the petitioner vide registered letters dated 23.7.2001 and 29.7.2001. The petitioner was never appointed in Kanhar Construction Division, Sonebhadra and his transfer order was fictitious.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner claims appointment on the basis of transfer in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia where there is no record. He claims to have been transferred from Flood Works Division-II, Ballia to Kanhar Nirman Khan, Pipari, Sonebhadra but was not permitted to join there and on verification and in pursuance of the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 52748 of 2000 it was found by the Engineer-in-Chief that he was not an employee of the department. It is also an admitted fact that the Investigating Officer investigated the matter in pursuance of the FIR lodged in case crime no. 311 of 1999 under Sections 467,468,471,419 and 420 IPC and submitted charge sheet interlia that the petitioner had obtained appointment by fraud.

 From the copy of the counter affidavit in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 filed along with supplementary affidavit on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance it is evident that it does not support the case of the petitioner.

It is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner had been paid salary believing that he had been bonafide appointed  but  when it came to light that  he had obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fictitious documents an investigation was made by the Engineer-in-Chief in pursuance of the orders of this Court, he found that the petitioner was never appointed in the department, hence it can not be said that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 55634 of 2001 aforesaid support the case of the petitioner.

It appears to me  that the petitioner had worked in this department on the basis of fabricated documents and as such the letter dated 27.1.2001 can not be given much importance because if a person can  fabricate papers showing himself to be appointed in Government department,  he can also manipulate the record by making  entry in the Dispatch Register showing dispatch of  letter dated 27.1.2001 in which it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner was made in Flood Works Division-II, Ballia instead of Drainage Khand, Ballia.

It is evident from the record that the petitioner was never appointed in the respondents establishment and all the records of the Flood Works Division-II, Ballia upon its closure had been sent to the Drainage department, hence enquiry was properly made from the department where the records of Flood Works Division-II,Ballia had been sent and from there  the documents supplied by the petitioner were got verified.  It also appears from the record that on verification it was revealed that the petitioner was never appointed as claimed by him.

In my opinion, it is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Dated 2.9.2005

CPP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.