IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 584 of 2009
Sunaina Devi @ Kumari ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents
.............
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
............
For the Petitioner Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto
For the Respondents Mr. Suresh Kumar, J.C. to G.P-III
............
3/ Dated: 18th of May, 2009
1. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no
reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following
facts and reasons:
(i) It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner was working with the respondents and she has
not paid honorarium/salary since July, 2007 and, therefore,
the present petition has been preferred, but, this is far away
from the facts as stated in the counter affidavit especially
paragraph 5 thereof. In pursuance of the order passed by
this Court on 12th May, 2009, an affidavit has been filed by
Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. Paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit reads as under:
“That it is stated that the petitioner has not approach the
Hon’ble Court with clean hand and suppressed fact that she has
already been terminated by the CDPO, Sariyahat vide his memo
no. 55 dated 7.2.2008 on the ground that she has selected on the
basis of forged certificate of the Matriculation and the
Intermediate.”
In view of the aforesaid reply, I see no reason to
entertain this writ petition as service of the petitioner has
been terminated w.e.f. 7th February, 2008, on the basis of
forged certificates of Matriculation and Intermediate. Fraud
vitiates whole appointment from very beginning.
(ii) It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for
the respondents that even an F.I.R. has already been lodged
bearing Sariyahat P.S. Case No. 135 of 2007 under Sections
467,468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code against the present
petitioner and in view of this F.I.R. also, there are direct
allegations against the present petitioner about fabrication of
the documents for getting job. Thus, not only the
termination of the service by State, but, also criminal action
has been initiated against the present petitioner.
(iii) It is also submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has already been granted
2.
anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka vide
order dated 19th December, 2007. When this Court raise a
query whether the petitioner was ever arrested, no answer
has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner
maintained stoic silence.
2. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and
reasons, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for grant of any relief to the petitioner
as petitioner has never worked after February, 2008. On
principle of ‘No work, no salary’ also petitioner is not entitled
for any salary/honorarium and there is also criminal matter
pending against her. There are direct allegations of fraud
and presentation of fabricated documents before State
authority. To dispel clouds of allegations of fraud, cogent
and convincing evidence is required to be laid. Thus, this
matter involves disputed questions of facts. In view of these
facts, there is no substance in this petition and, hence, the
same is dismissed.
3. The order passed by this Court vide order dated 12th
May, 2009 in which the direction was given about
respondent no. 3 is now hereby vacated.
4. Now, the direction given on 12th May, 2009 to
respondent no. 2 is also hereby discontinued.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/