Those Who Come by the Back Door Have to Go by the Same Door: Jharkhand High Court in Upholding Dismissal for False Information

High Court affirms dismissal of petitioner’s husband from Central Coal Field Ltd. For providing false information at the time of appointment.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal order of the petitioner’s husband from service with Central Coal Field Ltd. (CCL). The court upheld the decisions of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, emphasizing the importance of procedural justice and the role of substantial evidence in confirming fraudulent activities by the petitioner. Justice S.N. Pathak’s statement, “those who come by the back door have to go by the same door,” encapsulates the court’s firm stance on the matter.

The case involves Saraswati Devi’s petition against the dismissal of her husband, who was employed by Central Coal Field Ltd. Since September 19, 1988. Initially appointed as CWL Gr.-III at Rajhara Colliery, he rose through the ranks to become an Assistant Loading Inspector. However, in April 2015, a charge-sheet was issued against him based on a report by the Circle Officer of Nawa Bazar, Palamau. The report revealed that he had provided false information regarding his name, age, and educational qualifications at the time of his appointment. Despite his detailed reply denying the charges, the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty, leading to his dismissal in June 2016. His appeal to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed, prompting the writ petition.

Service Law – Dismissal for False Information:The court scrutinized the dismissal, highlighting the fraudulent discrepancies in the information provided by the petitioner’s husband. The charge-sheet detailed how he had falsified his name, age, and educational qualifications, leading to a disciplinary inquiry that confirmed the allegations. The court affirmed the dismissal, stressing that such fraudulent activities warranted strict action.

Documentary Proof: Emphasizing the invalidity of certain documents for age verification, the court noted, “The driving license, PAN Card, and voter card cannot be treated as valid documents for determining the date of birth of an employee.” The court found that the discrepancies in the date of birth across various documents indicated deliberate deceit by the petitioner.

Judicial Review – Departmental Proceedings: The High Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, focusing on correcting legal or procedural errors rather than re-evaluating evidence. The judgment stated, “High Courts should refrain from interfering with findings supported by evidence.” It was found that the disciplinary proceedings followed natural justice principles, providing the petitioner ample opportunity to present his case.

Justice S.N. Pathak remarked, “The Hon’ble Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from reappraising the evidences led in the departmental proceedings.” He further emphasized, “those who come by the back door have to go by the same door,” reflecting the court’s strict stance on fraudulent appointments.

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding procedural justice and integrity in public employment. By affirming the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner, the judgment reinforces the legal framework for addressing fraudulent activities in employment and sends a clear message about the consequences of providing false information.

Date of Decision: 17^th May 2024

Saraswati Devi vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors.