JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Gopal Balak Junior High School, Kankar Khera, Shobhapur, Meerut since 1.3.1996. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari approved his appointment. He is aggrieved by the order of his dismissal dated 3.12.2001 passed by Committee of Management (respondent No. 2). The petitioner has the following educational qualifications :--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On a general complaint made by some persons against the management of Gopal Balan Junior High School, Kankar Khera. Shobhapur, Meerut to the Governor and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Director of Education (Science), office of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Allahabad (respondent No. 4), conducted an enquiry. Pending enquiry the payment of salary to the Teachers of the School was stopped vide order dated 30.9.2000, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner and some other Teachers along with him filed Writ Petition No. 4094 of 2001, Girish Thapar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. A mandamus was granted by this Court on 5.2.2001 for payment of salary to the petitioners till further orders. In pursuance thereof the petitioner was paid salary till 31.12.2000.
4. Thereafter respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 30.3.2001 to the petitioner indicating that his certificates of educational qualifications are forged and very doubtful. An enquiry was conducted by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari; Meerut (respondent No. 1) regarding educational qualifications through the Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut who was the Enquiry Officer. The contents of notice dated 30.3.2001 is as under :--
^^dk;kZy;] ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] esjB A vfofgr i=kad ys[[email protected]&[email protected]&2001] fnukad 30-3-2001] Jh jeu dqekj ¼lgk;d v/;kid½] xksiky twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy] ddj[ksM+k A Jh jke izdk'k] mi f'k{kk funs'kd ¼foKku½ Ñrs f'k{kk funs'kd csfld] m-iz-] bykgkckn ds i=kad lkekU; ¼1½ [email protected]@[email protected]&2001] fnukad 6-12-2000 ds }kjk tk¡p ds le; vkids fu;qfDr ij fuEu vkifRr yxkbZ gS % 1- vki izcU/kd ds utnhdh fj'rsnkj gSa A ftudh fu;qfDr csfld f'k{kk fu;ekoyh] 1978 dh /kkjk 6 ds vUrxZr vekU; gS A 2- vkidh 'kSf{[email protected]'k{k.k izek.k&i= lafnX/k gS A 3- vkidh mez fu;qfDr ds le; 18 o"kZ ls de Fkh A D;ksa u vkidh lsok;sa lekIr dj nh tk;sa A vki i{k izLrqr djus gsrq ewy izek.k&i=ksa lfgr ,oa v/;kid QksVks izi= ¼rhu izfr;ksa½ lfgr fnukad 3 ,oa 4 viSzy dks vius fo|ky; esa mifLFkr jgs vU;Fkk ;g le>k tk;sxk fd vkidks dqN ugha dguk gS] vkSj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj nh tk;sxh A g- vLi"V] ¼pUnu flag fc"V½] ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] essjB A**
5. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 9.8.2001. The relevant part of the said report pertaining to the petitioner is as under :
¼d½ jeu dqekj lgk;d dh fu;qfDr frfFk 1-3-96 n'kkZ;h x;h gS] v/;kid us f'k{kk 'kkL=h ijh{kk o"kZ 1990 esa mRrh.kZ dh gqbZ n'kkZ;h gS] f'k{kk 'kkL= izek.k&i= dh tk¡p djkbZ xbZ] ftls tkap esa QthZ ik;k x;k v/;kid fooj.k izi= esa izcU/kd us vius gLrk{kj djds ml ij ¶ywM ¼L;kfg½ yxk nh gS] ftlls fu;qfDRk vkSj Hkh laafnX/k gksrh gS A vr% fu;qfDr fujLr djus ;ksX; gS A
6. Though the aforesaid enquiry report has been filed with the writ petition it is submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was never given to the petitioner at the relevant time informing him to submit proper reply to the show cause notice and as such deprived him of opportunity to produce necessary evidence which could have been obtained from the Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi regarding passing of the B.Ed. Examination.
7. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted an application before the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), 1st Region, Meerut on 10.9.2001, informing that he has passed B.Ed. Examination, in the year 1990, with Roll No. 344 from Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and also that the Enquiry Officer had not properly verified the record from the authority of the University.
8. A representation was also submitted by the petitioner on 23.11.2001 along with an affidavit before respondent No. 2 disclosing relevant facts and information that proper verification had not been done but it is alleged that no action was taken by respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that without considering his representation and without making proper enquiry in respect of his correct roll number from the Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya regarding his B.Ed. and other qualifications a show cause notice dated 15.11.2001 was issued to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 23.11.2001. However, without considering his reply, he was dismissed on 3.12.2001.
9. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has passed B.Ed. Examination in 1990, from Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi with Roll No. 344 and the degree dated 21.5.1997 was issued to him which was submitted before the respondents but the respondents illegally held that his B.Ed. Degree is forged and illegally dismissed him from service. The petitioner has impleaded Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi also. The petitioner further alleges that opportunity of hearing was denied to him by respondent No. 1 who conducted ex parte enquiry in very illogical and irrational manner and illegally came to the conclusion that his B.Ed. Degree is forged. The petitioner alleges to have repeatedly requested the respondents to verify the facts from the University Authorities but the respondents paid no heed to his request.
10. It is further submitted that in fact respondent No. 7 demanded six months' salary as illegal gratification and when he refused to pay the same respondent No. 7, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari deliberately, maliciously and in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 and 6 prepared a forged enquiry report and dismissed him from service in violation of all canon of natural justice.
11. At the time of admission, notices were accepted by the Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Notices were also issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 7. However, counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8. Surprisingly, Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (respondent No. 9) has filed counter-affidavit even though notice had not been issued to it. It appears that the case came up for modification of the order and after hearing the parties the following order was passed on 11.4.2002 :--
"Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the present case are exactly the same as Writ Petition No. 43558 of 2001 in which interim order has been granted by this Court.
In view of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of University, it is clear that the petitioner has passed B.Ed. from University on the Roll No. 344 in the year 1990. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that petitioner has prima facie case to get interim protection. It is directed that operation of the impugned orders dated 5.11.2001 and order dated 3.12.2001 (Annexures 18 and 20 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed and the petitioner will be entitled to get his current salary month by month..
List this matter in July, 2002 along with Writ Petition No; 43558 of 2002.
Sd/-S.K. Singh, J., 11.4.2002."
12. At the time of hearing also Counsel for Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya appeared and supported the case of the petitioner on the basis of averments made in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the University through its Registrar. In Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 9 it has been-stated that the certificates annexed to the writ petition as Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 4 arc genuine documents issued by the University. The contents of Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit are as under :--
"4. That the certificates annexed with the writ petition as Annexure No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the genuine documents as have been issued by the University. The petitioner has done his B.Ed. course from the University on the Roll No. 344 in the year 1990."
13. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of alleged fictitious certificates of educational qualification. On the other hand the petitioner had been demanding fair and unbiased enquiry for verification of his educational qualification. The genuineness of the B.Ed. qualification could only have been verified by the respondent No. 9 who has supported the case of the petitioner as stated above. In the absence of the counter-affidavit from any of the other respondents 1 to 8 the unrebutted averments of the petitioner coupled with supporting counter-affidavit of respondent No. 9 has to be accepted.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of termination is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay his salary month to month as and when it falls due. No order as to costs.