RANCHI, India, Oct. 2 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 2:

1. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following relief:- (i) For quashing the charge sheet dated 12-07-2017 (Annexure-14), the dismissal order dated 09-11-2019 (Annexure-18) passed by Project Officer, Rajrappa Project & the Appellate Order dated 06- 2/3-2020 (Annexure-21) passed by Director(P) CCL. (ii) For quashing the order dated 22-08-2016 and 27-02- 2017 (Annexue-12 Series). By which petitioner was reverted back to the post of Cat-I. (iii) For directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in original post and pay the consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Cat-1 employee on 01-02-1979 and at the time of joining his date of birth was recorded in service record on the strength of school leaving certificate.

Thereafter, the Petitioner was given several promotions along with other non-matriculate employees. Thereafter, on 20-03-2010 & 01-11-2015, despite the fact that Petitioner was non-matriculate, which was within knowledge of the Respondents, he was promoted to Clerical Special Grade and further to the post of T & S Grade "A".

All of a sudden, on 25-07-2016 & 13-08-2016, by letter dated 25-07-2016, Petitioner was asked to submit matriculation certificate to which the Petitioner responded by stating that he is not a matriculate.

On 22-08-2016 & 27-02-2017, due to Nonfurnishing of Matric certificate Petitioner's promotions to the post of office superintendent in T & S Grade-A was cancelled and subsequently he was reverted to the post of Category-I without any notice/show cause OR any opportunity of hearing.

3. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred a Writ petition being WPS-6788/2017. Thereafter, on 12-07-2017, Petitioner was issued impugned chargesheet alleging that on basis of attested copy of his school leaving certificate enclosed in his service record in which his passing of matric exam was mentioned as 1976; his promotions up to post of office superintendent was affected and he never disclosed that he was not a matriculate and he was charged under misconduct clause of 26.1 and 26.9 of the certified standing order of the company.

4. On 24-12-2018, in her Enquiry Report, the Inquiry officer held one of the charges was proved i.e. under 26.1 and the other charge i.e. under 26.9 was not proved. Thereafter on 5-11-2019, 2nd Show cause was severed to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied and subsequently on 09-11-2019, Impugned Order of dismissal was passed and W.P.S-6788/2017 was dismissed as Infructuous vide order dated 19-11-2019.

On 25-11-2019, an Appeal was filed against the Dismissal Order which was rejected on 06-2/3/2020. Hence, this writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner was neither a matriculate nor; at any point of time, either at the time of appointment or thereafter at any stage of time, ever submitted any educational certificate showing that he was matriculate, and the factum that the petitioner is not a matriculate was well known to the respondents, which is evident from the service sheet excerpts of the petitioner furnished to him in the year 1987 (Annexure-9), wherein the column of educational qualification did not reveal any qualification of matriculation in respect of the petitioner. Further, in the objection column of the service-sheet excerpts also he never furnished that he was a matric.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d6Y2dT5ovUVBd6aRqVG7w%2BWX0sEwXv3kbotBYD4hgf3h&caseno=WPC/1576/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010114102020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.