Heard Sri Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The order under challenge is an order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the opposite party No.4 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has produced her High School marksheet fraudulently inasmuch as name of the father of the petitioner is Sri Ram Fakeere but in the records of the Institution in question the name of father of the petitioner is indicated as Sri Raj Bahadur.
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Anganbari Worker on 05.06.2007 and she has regularly discharged her duties till the date of termination of her term.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, which is a show cause notice dated 18.11.2020 issued by the District Programme Officer, Balrampur seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why the name of father of the petitioner, so indicated in the marksheet, is different from the documents of the Institution inasmuch as the High School Certificate of the petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, indicates that the name of father of the petitioner is Sri Ram Fakeere but in the official record of the Institution the name of father of the petitioner is indicated as Sri Raj Bahadur. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 28.11.2020 (Annexure No.4) explaining therein that at the time of filling up her High School Examination Form she had categorically indicated the name of her father as Sri Ram Fakeere. Thereafter, when the High School Certificate was issued the name of father of the petitioner is indicated as Sri Ram Fakeere. However, when the petitioner came to know that name of her father has been wrongly indicated in the official record, she preferred application to the Institution in question to correct the name of her father. The petitioner has preferred such application dated 20.07.1987, which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, and the original application has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no mistake of any kind whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner and if the School record is indicating the name of father of the petitioner as Sri Raj Bahadur, the same could have been corrected after the application of the petitioner preferred on 20.07.1987 but on account of the aforesaid reason, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated saying that she has produced a forged High School certificate.
Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has produced before the Court the parawise comments provided by the District Programme Officer, Balrampur and other correspondences which have been annexed with this comments, the same are taken on record. Para-9 of the aforesaid comments clearly indicates that the High School certificate of the petitioner indicates her father name as Ram Fakeere, however, the record of the Institution reveals that the name of her father is Sri Raj Bahadur. Therefore, as indicated in para-9 of the comments, as to whether the aforesaid mistake is a clerical mistake or this is a deliberate mistake, the Institution in question has got no proof to this effect.
It is observed that after perusing the parawise comments of the District Programme Officer, Balrampur, there would be no fruitful purpose served on keeping the writ petition pending by calling upon the counter affidavit and the writ petition may be decided finally at the admission stage.
Considering the aforesaid averments of parawise comments of the District Programme Officer, Balrampur as well as the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, I am of the considered opinion that if the Institution in question has got no documentary proof or material showing that the indication of the name of father of the petitioner in the record of the Institution as Sri Raj Bahadur is deliberate or intentional, the inference would be drawn that it was a clerical mistake. Besides, the petitioner has preferred a representation to the Competent Authority on 20.07.1987 (Annexure No.5) for making correcting in the name of her father, it should have been corrected. It is also relevant to consider here that there may not be any malafide intention of the petitioner indicating the name of her father wrongly when the petitioner has herself qualified High School Examination in the year 1985.
It appears that neither the application of the petitioner dated 20.07.1987 was considered by the authority concerned properly nor her explanation to show cause notice has been considered by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order dated 02.07.2021. When the Authority Competent has got no material evidence to establish that the petitioner was having any malafide or ill motive producing her High School certificate then on the basis of the fact that the documents of the Institution is mentioning the wrong name of father of the petitioner no adverse presumption can be made against her. The punishment order cannot be based upon conjecture and surmises.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the District Programme Officer, Balrampur is patently illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 02.07.2021, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed/ set aside.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefits, with expedition, preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified/ computerized copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Suresh/