Indira Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as part time water carrier under Rule 12 of the Part Time Water Carrier Scheme.

As per Rule 12, the Hon''ble Chief Minister can at his discretion appoint any widow or disabled person as part time water carrier in a school. The powers of the Hon''ble Chief Minister are not under challenge in this Court but it is urged by Shri Surya Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that when the order annexure R-5/1 was passed whereby the name of Respondent No. 5 was recommended for appointment as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Ghanduri certain facts which were very relevant and should have been taken into consideration before issuance of the appointment letter were not brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Chief Minister.

The first allegation is that as per the copy of the Jamabandi attached annexure P-4 Respondent No. 5 Surat Ram had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the H.P. State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and therefore, this by itself shows that he had taken a loan for agricultural purposes and thus his income could not be less than 12,000/- per annum. The other allegation made in the petition was that some criminal case was pending against the said Respondent. During the course of this petition, the Superintendent of Police, Sirmour was directed to file an affidavit as to whether any case has been registered against Respondent No. 5. The Superintendent of Police has filed her affidavit and the relevant portion of her affidavit reads as follows:

That the case FIR No. 15/2010 dated 11.3.2010 u/s 465/468/471 Indian Penal Code was registered on the complaint of Shri Mast Ram, Naib Tehsildar, Nohradhar, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour.

That as per the case of the prosecution the accused Surat son of late Shri Munglu resident of village and post office Gandhuri Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P. on 27.01.2010 submitted two pension forms pertaining to the pension benefits of two persons namely Sh. Khyalu Ram and Sh.Jalmu, in the office of Naib Tehsildar Nohradhar. The forms were duly filled, but Naib Tehsildar was suspicious about that signature of the Halqua Patwari, Patwar Circle Gandhuri. Thereafter, Naib Tehsildar made an enquiry in this regard and found that not only the signature of the Patwari but signatures of Pradhan and Panchayat Sahayak had also been forged. Mr. Khyalu Ram and Mr. Jalmu Ram were also called/summoned by the Naib Tehsildar and elicited the truth by verifying the facts. Similarly, it came out that their signature upon the pension forms were forged. Accordingly, the criminal case vide FIR No. 15/10 dated 11.3.2010 came into existence.

That during the investigation, the signature of the accused Patwari Halqua, Panchayat Sahayak, Pradhan and both Khyalu and Jalmu were obtained. The signatures specimens and seals of Pradhan, Up Pradhan, Sachiv Halqua Patwari and Sahayak Sachiv were sent to SFSL for examination and comparison. As per report of SFSL the signatures of the accused were found on the pension forms and the seals engraved/put on the forms were found different from the seals of Patwari, Pradhan and Panchayat Sachiv.

That the accused had moved an application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Sirmaur at Nahan which was rejected by the learned Court. The accused was arrested on 14.02.2011 and after three days custodial interrogation he was sent to judicial custody. The accused remained in judicial custody fo 14 days i.e. w.e.f.17.2.2011 to 1.3.2011. The accused remained in Police custody for three days and in judicial custody for fourteen days.

This Court is not in any way commenting on the merits of the criminal case because the right of the accused to a fair trail cannot be denied. However, it cannot be disputed that as per the police Respondent No. 5 is an accused in a case which involves moral turpitude, forgery, etc. Whether these allegations are true or not is for the criminal court to decide but this case was registered on 11th March, 2010 and the incident out of which this F.I.R. was registered allegedly took place on 27th January, 2010. Therefore, it was necessary that these facts should have been brought to the notice of the competent authority before the order under Rule 12 was passed. It is apparent that neither the fact that Respondent No. 5 had taken a loan nor the fact that he was involved in a criminal case was brought to the notice of the competent authority and for this reason alone the impugned order has to be set-aside. The competent authority may now consider the applications including the application, if any made by the Petitioner, as well as other applications made for appointment of part time water carrier in the school in question. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.