Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4168 of 2015 Petitioner :- Sita Ram And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Gupta
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Utkarsh Birla learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools rejecting representation of the petitioner dated 25.4.2014, denying their claim to disburse salary from the State Exchequer. The order impugned categorically records that the petitioners were appointed as Class-IV employees in the institution by making forgery in the record of selection. The approval order dated 9.11.1999 of the District Inspector of Schools Jalaun, Orai had been obtained by making manipulation in the record of the selection. It was further opined, had the then Principal of the Institution was in service, he would have been made personally responsible for making payment to the petitioners.
Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1999 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee with the requisite approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The approval order dated 9.11.1999 and the joining reports of both the petitioners have been appended to the writ petition to demonstrate that the petitioners were allowed to join the Institution in the month of December, 1999 after approval of their appointment by the competent authority.
The show cause notice was served on the petitioners on 14.12.2012 but the documents mentioned as enclosures therein were not supplied to the petitioners despite request made by them. In absence of the said documents, it was not possible for them to submit their reply to the charge sheet. Since the salary of the petitioners had been stopped by the Manager in the month of July, 2012, they approached this Court in writ petition no.22513 of 2014 wherein direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun to redress the grievances of the petitioners on the representation being made by them annexing supporting material.
A detailed representation dated 15.10.2014 was filed by the petitioners denying the allegations in the show cause notice and to submit that their appointments were validly made in the year 1999 and they had received salary till the month of June, 2012. Their salary was stopped since July, 2012 by the then Manager of the Institution on the premise that their appointments were made beyond sanctioned post.
It is contended that the petitioners had clarified in their reply that they could not be made party to the illegality, if any, committed by the Committee of Management of the institution in making selection beyond the sanctioned strength. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of this Court in Writ petition no.26307 of 2010 (Druv Narain Singh vs State of U.P.) dated 7.10.2013, the surplus staff working on the date of determination of strength, could not have been removed on the ground that their appointment was beyond the sanctioned strength.
It is contended that the exercise of power on the part of the respondent after 12 years of appointment was wholly uncalled for. Moreover, the objections that someone else was selected cannot be taken after 12 years that too based on some complaint and letter of the then Principal stating that the appointment letters were bearing his forged signature. As no one had challenged selection for such a long time, it was not open for the management or the Principal to take any objection. The impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools does not refer to any material document being examined by him which would have formed basis to reach at the conclusion of alleged forgery in the record of selection. The order of the District Inspector of Schools only refers to the contents of the letter of the then Principal of the Institution and the stand taken by the present Principal. The findings returned by the District Inspector of Schools are only reiteration of allegations in the complaint.
Even otherwise, till date there is no order of termination of services of the petitioners. The petitioners had worked till 2014 and, thereafter, they have been illegally restrained from duty, salary had also not been paid since July, 2012. Even the approval order has not been revoked, the order of denial of salary to the petitioners from the State Exchequer, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Learned Standing counsel, however, submits that the petitioners got appointment by forgery in the record of selection. Enquiry in this regard revealed that five posts of Class-IV employees were sanctioned in the Institution. In April, 1999, as per the record of payment of salary, four Class-IV employees were working in the Institution and only one post was vacant. The then Principal of Institution had appointed five Class-IV employees on 23.5.1999 and approval was obtained by forgery in the documents of selection submitted before the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun. The order of approval dated 9.11.1999 categorically records that in case of any concealment or incorrect facts, the financial approval would automatically stand cancelled. Referring to the order impugned, it is contended that on the allegations of financial irregularities committed by the then Manager of the Institution, the Authorised Controller was appointed after the completion of the enquiry.
The letters of appointment dated 29.7.1999 issued to the petitioners were outcome of fraud on the part of the then Principal/Manager of the Institution, joining of the petitioners on Class-IV post was, therefore, found illegal. The petitioners were given opportunity to explain and after enquiry decision was taken for payment of salary only to those Class-IV employee, who were working against the sanctioned strength. As appointment of the petitioners was obtained by fraud being beyond the sanctioned strength, they are not entitled for payment of salary from the State Exchequer.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds under.
At this time of selection of the petitioners, Sri Arvind Kumar Diwedi was holding the post of Principal, he had submitted resignation on 27.8.1999. Prior to his resignation, he issued appointment letters to four Class-IV employees in the Institution, two of them are the petitioners herein. From the date of appointment till June, 2012, the petitioners got salary from the State Exchequer. From July, 2012, the Manager had withheld salary on the ground that the petitioners were appointed beyond the sanctioned post. It was argued that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any forgery in the record of selection or their appointment having been made beyond the sanctioned post. Their submission before the District Inspector of Schools in the representation was that they were innocent and having been appointed in the Institution after due recommendation by the Selection Committee, their appointment cannot be cancelled. Even persons working beyond sanctioned strength were entitled to continue in view of the protection being granted by this Court in Dhruv Narain Singh vs State of U.P (supra) .
The show cause notice served on the petitioners clearly stated that both the petitioners were absent on the date of interview ie 23.5.1999 and the said fact had been noted in the original papers of the selection, but while forwarding the papers of selection, the names of the petitioners had been inserted. The approval was, thus, obtained by making forgery in the record of selection by the then clerk of the Institution.
These assertions in the show cause notice were based on the documents enclosed thereto, the reply given by the petitioners addressed to the Manager are dated 31.12.2012 and 15.1.2013. It is noteworthy that both the petitioners in their said reply did not controvert the assertions in the show cause notice that they were not absent on the date of selection. It was not even stated by the petitioners that they had duly appeared before the Selection Committee.
The order impugned categorically records that the Committee of Management of the Institution was superseded vide order dated 20.12.2012 by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 16D (4) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, Orai was appointed Authorised Controller. There was, therefore, no question of addressing replies to the Manager for providing documents by the petitioners. There is nothing on record that the petitioners had ever demanded the relevant documents from the then Authorised Controller and there is no whisper about the same. In their representation to the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.12.2014, in the enquiry made pursuant to the directions of this Court, no explanation had been offered to the allegations in the show cause notice, only submission of the petitioners therein is that they cannot be held responsible for any forgery in the record of selection and they could not have knowledge of the sanctioned strength of Class-IV Staff in the Institution.
The allegations in the show cause notice that the petitioners were absent on 23.5.1999 in the interview conducted for selection to Class-IV post and approval of their appointment was obtained by making interpolation in the record of allegations, therefore, remained unrebutted. Apart from the said fact, the petitioners were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength as on the date of their appointment only one post of Class-IV employee was vacant.
For the said facts of forgery evident from the records, no interference can be made.
It is noteworthy that the petitioners got payment from the State Exchequer and also got benefit of ACP Scheme but no recovery has been ordered from them for the period of working but they shall not be entitled to any further payment from the State Exchequer. For any claim of the petitioners for non payment of salary, the then Manager or Principal shall be responsible.
The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merit and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 29.7.2019 Harshita