1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3924 of 2019 ------ Alka Kumari, wife of Shri Shubhankar Kumar Prasad, Permanent resident of Village & P.O. Oreya, P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribagh, presently residing at Jashpur Road, Gumla, P.O. Gumla, P.S. Sadar Gumla, District Gumla, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, Jharkhand. 6. District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate Mr. Jayati Toppo, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, AC to SC-III ------ 04/ 17.03.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For quashing of Memo No.-919, Dated 15.07.2019, Annexure-16 issued by the Respondent No.-6, District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, whereby and whereunder the charge sheet, Prapatra- ‘Ka’ has been issued against the petitioner, since, the same kind of show cause notice issued vide letter No.- 1270, dated 08.08.2016 and assigning the same reason, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Graduate Trained Teacher, vide Office Order issued by Respondent No.-6, vide Memo No.-1680, Dated-04.10.2016, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.-6875 of 2016, before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court was pleased 2 to quash the Order dated 04.10.2016, and it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner is entitle to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. ii. For staying the further proceeding in pursuance to the Memo No.-919, Dated 15.07.2019, Annexure- 16, issued by the Respondent No.-6, District Superintendent of Education, Simdega, or during the pendency of the writ petition the operation of the order contained in the Memo No.-919, Dated 15.07.2019, may kindly be stayed. iii. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) commanding upon the respondents concern not to harass, torture and defame again and again without any valid reason.” 2. The petitioner was selected in the meeting of Village Education Committee held on 26.02.2008 and she was appointed and joined as Para-Teacher on the same date in the Government Middle School, Toto. 3. The petitioner partakes in the examination of B.Ed, after following the proper channel. Thereafter, certificate of B.Ed. was issued to the petitioner by the Ranchi University. 4. During course of scrutiny of educational qualification of the petitioner, it was found that she has obtained her B.Ed degree while working as Para Teacher. 5. The petitioner in her show cause reply vehemently and fervently conceded that she had appeared in the final examination for B.Ed with permission of the Village Education Committee, however, the District Education Establishment Committee, Simdega, observed that the petitioner was not granted permission for enhancing her educational qualification pursuant whereof her service was terminated by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega. 3 The petitioner being discontented with the aforesaid order of termination, moved before this Court vide W.P.(S) No.6875 of 2016, wherein this Court vide order dated 25.08.2018 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to accept her joining. 6. Subsequently, after the petitioner was reinstated and was discharging her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned, the respondents issued charge-sheet against the petitioner as contained in Memo No.919/ Simdega, dated 15.07.2019. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are that she obtained her B.Ed degree in an irregular manner, and she acted in violation of the Government Servant Conduct Rules. In the said charge-sheet the petitioner was put to show cause as to why her graduation degree be not declared as illegal and a departmental proceeding be not initiated against her for violation of Government Servant Conduct Rules. 7. Thus, the petitioner is now before this Court calling in question the impugned order as contained in Memo No.919/ Simdega, dated 15.07.2019. 8. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is bad in law and with an oblique motive as the allegation levelled against her with regard to enhancement of her qualification has already been taken note of and has been set at rest by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.6875 of 2016, holding therein that there is no allegation that the petitioner has submitted a forged certificate or 4 that the educational qualification acquired by her is not valid. It has been further held that evidently, none of the conditions which may warrant termination from service during the period of probation is satisfied in the case of the petitioner. This Court finally observed that the procedure adopted by the respondents for scrutinizing the educational qualification of the petitioner was erroneous which has vitiated the decision making process resulting in termination of her service. 9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has illegally obtained her B.Ed degree while working as Para Teacher and she is liable to be charge-sheeted. 10. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length and perused the material available on record. 11. The show-cause notice dated 08.08.2016 issued to the petitioner also fails to establish breach of condition on part of the petitioner, which would suggest her guilt. Degree of B.Ed. awarded to her is a valid degree and admittedly is not a forged one. 12. There is no gainsaying the fact that as this petitioner has been selected as a Teacher on her own merit, if some irregularity was done while she was working as a Para teacher, that will have no effect on the present appointment which is absolutely different from the earlier one and is a fresh appointment. Admittedly, when working as a Para Teacher, the respondents have not taken any steps against the petitioner, they cannot take action now when the petitioner has been appointed afresh, and there is no illegality in the fresh 5 appointment. Thus, this Court holds that the respondents have arbitrarily issued charge-sheet against the petitioner. 13. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, the impugned Memo No.919/ Simdega, dated 15.07.2019, is quashed and set aside. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2