1 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 2025:CGHC:18190 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7142 of 2016 Order reserved on : 13.02.2025 Order passed on : 22.04.2025 Brijbai Bhatpahari, Wd/o Late Shri Balaram Bhatpahari, Aged About 49 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Bajaj Colony, Sector 1, Street No C 33 Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh P.S. Rakhi, 2-District Education Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3- Director, Directorate Public Education Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by assailing the orders dated 10.09.2014, 08.04.2016, 18.07.2016 and 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner by way of present petition is calling under question the orders whereby, the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 in service on account of acquittal of the criminal case has been rejected on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the verification form at the time of appointment. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 (Annexure P/1 Colly) and order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner back into service. 10.2. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.’’ 2. The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Gidhpuri, Block-Palari, Raipur Division, Raipur, her husband died in harness while working as Assistant Teacher and thereafter the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment. Copy of appointment order dated 13.04.1998 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/3, the appointment was granted after due verification of the details provided in the application form. The petitioner joined her duty on 21.04.1998 in pursuance of the appointment order as would be evident from letter dated 21.04.1998. Copy of her joining letter is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was falsely implicated in murder case of her husband and was sent to jail, the petitioner being released on bail requested the authority to allow her to rejoin services. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the form seeking compassionate appointment and character certificate was obtained. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice stating that the information provided in application for compassionate appointment was true and correct and nothing had been concealed. In support of her contention, the petitioner 3 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 referred to the letter dated 29.11.1997 issued by the respondent authorities on the address given by the petitioner, which was duly received by her. The petitioner stood convicted in the trial and therefore, it would have been a futile exercise to pursue the matter further till her innocence was proved in the Court of law. Finally, the petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide its order dated 22.07.2014. Copy of order dated 22.07.2014 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/8. After acquittal, the petitioner moved a representation before respondent No.1 for considering her case for reinstatement before the D.E.O., however, the same was dismissed vide its order dated 10.09.2014. The petitioner moved a representation dated 20.08.2015 before the higher authorities. The petitioner’s representation has been dismissed vide its order dated 08.04.2016 followed by the order dated 18.07.2016. Copy of the impugned orders dated 10.09.2014, 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 are filed and marked herewith as Annexure P/1 (colly.). The respondents in the impugned order has taken a new ground that the petitioner had given wrong declaration in the application form and therefore, the impugned orders had been passed, whereas, from perusal of Annexure P/2, it will be evident that the same was passed on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address, because of which, her character could not be verified. The petitioner submitted that the information regarding address was correctly provided in the application form and no concealment was made in application form. After demise of her husband, the petitioner has no source of livelihood. Hence, this present petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are oppressive and arbitrary, the petitioner had furnished correct address in the application form, the petitioner had received communications from the respondent authorities on the address furnished by the petitioner in the 4 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 application form. The petitioner had not furnished any wrong information or concealed anything in the application form and all the information as asked in the verification form was furnished. The petitioner was completely dependent upon her husband for her survival and in absence of employment, she is finding it difficult to meet her ends. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal case, the initial order dated 25.04.2001 was passed on the basis that the petitioner had furnished wrong information of address in the verification form, which is contrary to the records, so the impugned orders dated 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) are liable to be set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all consequential benefits. He places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,1 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State strongly and vehemently opposes the above prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that husband of the petitioner namely late Shri Balram Bhatpahari was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Gidhpuri, Block- Palari, District- Raipur, who died in harness and petitioner has been granted appointment on compassionate basis vide order dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure P/3). The said appointment has been given on certain terms and conditions and in the condition No. 4, it has been mentioned that the information given by the petitioner for appointment is completely true and correct which will be verified by the petitioner herself and in case of any wrong information being and proved, the appointment shall be put to end without any notice. After death of her husband, in order to obtain the 1 (2024) 1 SCC 175 5 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 government employment, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment by moving application, in which her residential address was given to be Qrt. No. 637, Deepak Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur P.O. Ravigram Colony, District- Raipur and appointment on compassionate basis was given to the petitioner vide order dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure P/3). He further submits that after providing appointment on compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the character of the petitioner was verified from the concerned police station as per the residential address given by the petitioner in the application form for compassionate appointment. A communication/letter dated 15.10.1999 from Police Station- Palari, District- Raipur was received to the effect that in P.S. Palari, a Crime No. 37/94 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and others and the trial in the said crime was still going on in the Court of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then it has been realized that at the time of submitting the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has given wrong information i.e., residential address, based upon which the character verification of the petitioner has been done, whereas as per the information received from the P.S.- Palari dated 15.10.1999, it has been found that against the petitioner, a criminal case was pending and the petitioner has deliberately and willfully not stated and mentioned this information and thus, the petitioner has concealed this material fact of registration of crime against her at Police Station- Palari which resulted into misleading of information by the petitioner to the State government for obtaining the government employment. When this fact came to the notice of the respondent authorities, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice which the petitioner replied on 08.1.2001 and upon being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by 6 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2), the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioner filed her acquittal order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1636/1999, but it is clear from termination order that services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of concealment of the material fact of registration of crime and submission of wrong information/residential address, based upon which the character verification of the petitioner was done. Hence, the reliance placed upon by the petitioner does not help to the petitioner in any manner because the termination of the petitioner from service is not based upon the conviction by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that against the termination from service, the petitioner has submitted representations from time to time which have duly been considered and decided by the answering respondents vide impugned orders (Annexure P/1) in the light of the circular dated 30.08.1993 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of General Administration, in which it is provided that the incumbent obtains the government employment by submitting the wrong information and certificates etc., those should not be remained in services, meaning thereby the services of such incumbent like the petitioner should be removed immediately. The petitioner has not established any cogent grounds warranting interference by this Court, therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that petitioner’s husband namely late Shri Balaram Bhatpahari was working in respondents’ department as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Gidhpuri, Block- Palari, Raipur, Division- Raipur 7 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 (C.G.) and he died in harness while working as Assistant Teacher and thereafter the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner had been granted appointment on compassionate basis vide order dated 13.04.1998 (Annexure P/3) and she joined her services on 21.04.1998 in pursuance of the appointment order as would be evident from letter dated 21.04.1998 (Annexure P/4). 7. It is also not disputed that respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner had furnished wrong address in the form seeking compassionate appointment and character certificate was obtained, to which the petitioner gave her reply on 03.05.2000 (Annexure P/6). Respondent authorities terminated the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) and representations of the petitioner were also rejected by the respondent authorities vide Annexure P/1. 8. The petitioner filed a copy of her reply dated 03.05.2000 as Annexure P/6, in which petitioner held as under:- “ ... कं डिका 2 के आरोप है की मैंने अपने आवेदन में पता गलत अंकिकत किकया है जबकिक मेरे आवेदन अवलोकन प्ቔ स्प्ቖ होगा की मैंने अपने पडित के मृत्यु पश्च्यात उनके मृत्यु स्थल का स्प्ቖ उ्ቤेख करते हुए अनुकम्पा किनयुकि* मांगी थी I जिजसमे मैंने शाला का उ्ቤेख था आज भी मैंने जो पूव1 में पता किदया था उसी स्थान पर मैं किनवास कर रही हूँ I कं डिका 3 के बारे में किनवेदन है किक { अनु्ቅमांक फाम1 } परशिश्ቖ पैरा 2 { क } किदनांक 15.1.1998 को दो गवाहों के सम्ቌ साथ साथ शपथ भर कर जो आवेदन मैंने ्ቚस्तुत किकया है उसमें मैंने किकसी ्ቚकार की असत्य जानकारी एवं तथ्यों को नहीं छु पाया है I...’’ 9. The petitioner has also filed a letter dated 29.11.1997 (Annexure P/7) issued by the respondent authorities, in which petitioner’s application was recommended for the compassionate appointment and in the said letter, petitioner’s copy was also forwarded to the petitioner’s address, which was mentioned in Serial No. 3 and as per Serial No. 3 address of the petitioner was as under:- ्ቚडितलिलकिप :- "3. ्ቦीमती बृजबाई भतपहरी स्व. राजें्ቖ नगर दीपक कालोनी माकन न. 647 पो. रकिव्ቇाम जिजला- रायपुर म. ्ቚ " 8 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 So, it is evident from this document that in the year of 1997 respondent office had address of petitioner as Rajendra Nagar, Deepak Colony Qtr. No. 647 PO. Ravigram District- Raipur M.P. 10. It is vivid that the respondents did not file any documents with their reply, though, the petitioner has also filed the letter dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure P/10), and application dated 22.04.2024 (Annexure P/11) in which she was demanded the original documents/forms through RTI regarding her compassionate appointment and termination, but it was informed by the concerned authority that the information sought by the petitioner is not available in the office, therefore, it is not possible to provide the information as sought by the petitioner. 11. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra), held in paras 21, 30 & 31, which read as under:- “ 21. It is very clear that relevant and material evidence being, the deposition of PW-5/Raj Singh; the marksheet of 8th class of the appellant [enclosed to the chargesheet] and the original marksheet independently marked as Ex. D3 by the defence have been completely left out in the discussion and consideration. Inference has been drawn about the proof of the charges by ignoring crucial, relevant and material evidence which had come on record. The evidence of PW-5 Raj Singh and the marksheet enclosed in the documents annexed to the chargesheet and the original marksheet marked as Ex. D-3, were materials having a direct bearing on the charge. The Disciplinary Authority has merely reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. Equally so are the findings of the appellate authority. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere. It is 9 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 only to satisfy ourselves to this extent, that we have scrutinized the material to see as to what was reflected in the record. We are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserves to be quashed. 30. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable. 31. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.484/2011 dated 05.09.2018. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As far as back wages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 50% of the back wages. The directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.” 12. In the light of above judgment and the aforesaid discussion, in the present case also respondents stated that services of the petitioner was not terminated on the ground of criminal case, her services was terminated on the ground of concealment of the material fact of registration of crime and submission of wrong information/residential address, based upon which the character verification of the petitioner was done. It is also evident from the documents as filed by the petitioner that only show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and her reply was not considered by the respondents authority. As the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that it is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the Court in judicial review can interfere and in the present case, it is quite evident that respondent authorities did not file any documents regarding wrong 10 WPS No. 7142 of 2016 submission of the petitioner. 13. As such looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) & impugned orders dated 08.04.2016 & 18.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed/set aside with all consequential benefits and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in her post with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate proper departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if so desire and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/defence to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and also adhering to the principles of natural justice. 14. As an upshot, the writ petition stands allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL