@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.@mdashIn this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner made against the office order dated 20.7.88 whereby he has been discharged from service on certain charges levelled against him.
2. Petitioner''s case is that he was appointed in 1970 on the post of teacher in Middle School, Dhokhra in the district of Dhanbad. In 1986 respondent No. 5, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad asked the petitioner to produce photocopies of his educational qualification certificates. Accordingly, the petitioner produced certificate issued by the Principal, Primary Teachers Education College of Dumka which was sent for verification. It is alleged that the Bihar School Examination Board, vide letter No. 1323 dated 8.2.88 informed respondent No. 5 that the petitioner appeared in Annual Middle Examination in 1965 and passed the said examination in IIIrd division. However, due to absence of roll number the information with regard to training could not be given. In 1987 the petitioner was served with a charge sheet alleging that on the basis of forged training certificate he got employment. It is contended that without holding enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, he was removed from service vide office order dated 20.7.88.
The contention of the petitioner is that without holding a regular enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. he has been removed from service.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it is stated that after the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Elementary School in the district of Dhanbad. several complaints from the villagers were received and a news was also published in the daily newspaper that the education certificates of the petitioner are forged. Respondent No. 5 made an enquiry from the Bihar School Examination Board about his matriculation certificate and from the Principal, Primary Teachers'' Training College, Dumka about his teachers'' training certificate. On enquiry it was found that the teachers'' training certificate of the petitioner is forged. The petitioner was thereafter, immediately served with a charge sheet vide memo dt. 21.12.87. After expiry of the time given to the petitioner for submission of show cause, the matter was considered and after getting approval of the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad-cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee, the services of the petitioner have been terminated from the date he was getting trained pay scale. It is stated that the petitioner''s teachers training certificate was found forged after due enquiry and he knowingly kept the department in dark. The respondents have further stated that the teachers training certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Principal, Elementary Teachers Training College. Dumka for verification, who informed the concerned respondents that the certificate produced by the petitioner is forged.
4. From the pleadings of the parties it appears that in 1987 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner asking him to submit his show cause/explanation in respect of the charges i.e. the forgery and fabrication in the teachers training certificate on the basis of which he started getting trained pay scale. The petitioner did not submit his show cause/explanation. The respondents, thereafter, got the said certificate verified from the Teachers Training Institute, Dumka and it was reported that no such training was ever given to the petitioner nor any certificate was issued to him and the certificate produced toy the petitioner is a forged one. On the basis of that finding, the petitioner was removed from service in 1988.
5. The petitioner has filed this writ application on 17.4.2000 i.e. after 12 years and instead of challenging the order of termination, he has sought a direction from this court to the respondents to consider his representation. No where in the writ application the petitioner has stated that the teachers training certificate produced by him before the respondents is a valid and genuine document nor has he annexed the copy of that certificate. It is. therefore, clear that the charges levelled against the petitioner by the respondents to the effect that the training certificate produced by him is a forged docu ment, has not been denied by the petitioner. 6. Considering all these facts I am of the opinion that the order of termination of ser vices of the petitioner passed by the respondents is neither illegal nor is against the principles of natural justice. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed.
5. Writ dismissed.
