IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S.) NO. 3128 OF 2003
Pradeep Kumar Tewari ...PETITIONER
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Director General of Police - cum - Inspector
General of Police, Jharkhand, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (HQ),
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand
Armed Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Commandant, JAP-2, Tatisilwai, Ranchi.
... RESPONDENTS
...
Coram:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, J.C. to A.G.
3/07.09.09
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the
then Bihar Military Police on 11.06.1997 and he joined the said post
on 03.07.1997. He was put under suspension in contemplation of
the departmental enquiry. Subsequently, vide memo no. 308
dated 28.01.2000, the petitioner was served with charges that a
unanimous complaint was received wherein it was alleged that
the petitioner’s School Education Certificate submitted by him
was false and he illegally obtained the said Certificate though he
did not even study in the School mentioned in the said Certificate.
This allegation was inquired into through one Sub Inspector
Ramadhar Singh who reported that the petitioner did not study in
the said School and the Certificate was not issued from that
School. The petitioner was asked to file a written explanation.
W.P. (S.) NO. 3128 OF 2003
[2]
3. The petitioner filed a detailed written explanation
denying and refuting the charges. According to the petitioner, the
charge was false and the report of the Sub Inspector Ramadhar
Singh was without any basis and without making any proper
inquiry he submitted the report.
The petitioner also stated that he did not submit any
Certificate of Class-VIII Pass rather he submitted Certificate of
Class-VII Pass. The explanation of the petitioner was not found
satisfactory and, thereafter, departmental inquiry was initiated
against him which was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police. Oral and documentary
evidence were adduced in course of inquiry by the department
against the petitioner as well as by the petitioner against the
department. The Enquiry Officer, after full fledged inquiry,
submitted his inquiry report contained in Annexure-11 wherein he
held that on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary,
charge against the petitioner was found to be proved and it was
established that the petitioner never studied in the School which is
mentioned in the Certificate and the Certificate submitted by the
petitioner itself was never issued by the said School.
4. Notice was issued to the petitioner to submit
explanation against the finding arrived at by the inquiry officer
which was submitted by him and, thereafter, it appears that the
disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed
Police – 2, Tatisilwai, Ranchi by Order dated 17.04.2002 as
contained in Annexure-13, awarded punishment to the petitioner
from dismissal from service. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred
W.P. (S.) NO. 3128 OF 2003
[3]
departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General,
Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi which was also dismissed by a
reasoned order on 30.09.2002 as contained in Annexure-15.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the
departmental revision prescribed under Rule 853 of the Bihar
Police Manual before the Director General – cum – Inspector
General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, which was
also dismissed by order dated 11.03.2003 as contained in
Annexure-16 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this
writ petition.
6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that findings of the enquiry officer are
perverse and not based on records and consequently, the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority as well as
revisional authority not based on materials on record and,
therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
7. From the impugned order as contained in Annexures
– 13, 15 and 16 as well as from the inquiry report, I find that the
authorities concerned have given concurrent findings of fact on
the basis of materials on record and have come to a definite
findings that the evidence on record disclose and establish the
fact that it was the petitioner who submitted fake certificate of a
School in which he never studied. The evidence brought on
record clearly establishes that the certificate submitted by the
petitioner at the time of his initial appointment was never issued by
the said School which was mentioned in the Certificate. The
W.P. (S.) NO. 3128 OF 2003
[4]
concurrent findings of fact on this point cannot be disturbed by
this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the case of Syed
Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1664 SC
477 wherein it has been held that the findings of fact cannot be
reopened by the Writ Court and only error of law can be
corrected and not error of facts howsoever grave it may be.
8. In any view of the matter, after going through the
impugned Orders, I find that the findings arrived at by the
authority concerned were based on materials and evidence on
record and, therefore, are not perverse in any manner.
9. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is
dismissed.
RC/ (Amareshwar Sahay, J.)