SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suresh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 26 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Jharkhand High Court

Suresh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Others on 26 February, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 177 of 2023
Suresh Kumar Singh … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Others … … Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

th
09/26 February 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Arguments of the petitioner

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that primarily the
petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of appeal by the appellate
authority as contained in Annexure-16/1 dated 08.12.2022 and also the order of
dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dated 11.04.2022 annexure-14.

3. While giving the foundational facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that while the petitioner was 14 years of age, the petitioner was
adopted by Rameshwar Singh and his biological father was the full brother of
Rameshwar Singh. The deed of adoption was registered subsequently on
25.01.1985 and the ex-employee of the respondent i.e Rameshwar Singh
declared the petitioner as his dependent in his service excerpts also. The
learned counsel submits that sometime in the year 1988, Rameshwar Singh
applied for voluntary retirement on account of medical unfitness and as per the
provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner was offered
employment. The petitioner had taken his Class-X examination in the year
1985 and all formalities for taking the exams were completed before adoption
wherein he had declared the name of his biological father.

4. The application for the appointment of the petitioner in terms of NCWA
on account of the voluntary retirement of Rameshwar Singh on medical
grounds was filed by the petitioner on 03.05.1989 and ultimately the petitioner
was granted appointment and by this time the petitioner had attained the age
of 18 years. The petitioner passed Class-X examination in the year 1985, Class-
XII examination in the year 1987, and passed his Bachelor of Arts in the year
2

1989. In the year 1993, the petitioner was issued the College Leaving
Certificate. As per Class-X certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is
05.12.1969.

5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner continued to work and on
8/9.06.2016, the petitioner was issued a show cause as contained in Annexure-
4 to which the petitioner responded and ultimately charge-sheet dated
1/2.02.2017 as contained in Annexure-5 was issued to the petitioner wherein
two allegations were made against the petitioner; (i) the deed of adoption as
son by Shri Rameshwar Singh was signed on 25.01.1985 and on that date the
petitioner had already crossed the legal age (fifteen years) for valid adoption,
which makes the petitioner’s adoption void as per Clause 10(iv) of the
Adoption Act 1956; (b) The educational certificates obtained by the petitioner
in the year 1987, 1989 and 1993 after the adoption bears the name of the
biological father of the petitioner, namely, Ram Lakhan Singh.
With these allegations, it was alleged that the available records established that
the petitioner cheated the company and managed to get employment in CCL
through an invalid and pseudo-adoption deed. The petitioner responded to the
same vide Annexure-6 dated 09.02.2017 and denied the charges.

6. The learned counsel has referred to the show cause reply dated
09.02.2017 and has submitted that
Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 was specifically referred to in the show cause reply
which deals with presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.
He has also submitted that the reason for maintaining the name of the
biological father in the certificates of educational qualification has been given
on internal page 6 of the show cause reply by stating that the petitioner was
registered for appearing in Class-X before the date of adoption and as such the
name of biological father appeared in his certificates.

7. The learned counsel has submitted that the inquiry report was submitted.
The findings of the inquiry officer are from running page No. 141 of the writ
records. The learned counsel has submitted that the arguments of the petitioner
were not accepted by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer recorded a
finding that the petitioner continued to maintain dual identity as son of his
biological father also. The authorities have recorded that any adoption made in
contravention of the provision of the
Adoption Act is null and void ab initio
3

and that the petitioner could not prove any custom or usage applicable to him
that permitted adoption beyond 15 years of age.

8. The learned counsel submits that the second show cause was issued to
the petitioner and ultimately the disciplinary authority passed the impugned
order of dismissal. The learned counsel submits that the disciplinary authority
also recorded that the appointment file could not be placed during the inquiry
as the same was missing and this itself created reasonable doubt to a prudent
mind which led to irresistible inference that the file was misplaced capriciously
to conceal the irregularity. The learned counsel has submitted that there was no
such charge against the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner filed appeal
and the appeal was also dismissed interalia by referring to some legal opinion
wherein it was opined that the deed of adoption does not create any valid
adoption, firstly for the reason that the petitioner could not have been taken
adoption on 25.01.1985 as he had already crossed the age of 15 years on that
day, secondly as per his own showing, even after several years, the petitioner
continued declaring biological father as his father in all the documents and the
educational certificates which were obtained in the subsequent years i.e. 1987,
1989 and 1993.

10. The learned counsel submits that both the impugned orders are ex-facie
perverse, since, the date of registration of the adoption deed is not the date of
adoption. The date of adoption was preceded by the date of registration. He has
further submitted that the continuation of the biological father of the petitioner
in the educational certificates was well explained. The learned counsel has also
submitted that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of
the petitioner. The document based on which the petitioner was taken into
employment is the adoption deed. The petitioner had worked for more than 32
years before he was dismissed from service.

11. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 31 of the Special Relief
Act which deals with cancellation of instruments. He submits that no steps
were taken for the cancellation of the adoption deed. The adoption deed
continues to be legal, valid and enforceable.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Smt. Ramti Devi vs.
Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198, paragraph 2 to impress upon the
4

validity of the adoption deed. The learned counsel has further referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Md. Zamil
Ahmed vs. State of Bihar Others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 342 to submit
that there is no justification to wake up after long years to make an allegation
that is not based on any suppression, misrepresentation, or fraud on the part of
the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that when the adoptive
father himself disclosed that the petitioner was duly adopted by him, there was
no question of challenging the adoption deed itself.

Arguments of the respondents

13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other
hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner had cheated and managed to get an appointment based on an invalid
and pseudo-adoption deed. Since the petitioner was more than 15 years old on
the date of execution of the adoption deed, the same itself is void ab initio and
cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.

14. The learned counsel has placed the adoption deed to submit that the
adoption was made to seek employment with the respondents. He has also
submitted that in the registered deed, the age of the petitioner has been
mentioned as 14 years which is also incorrect if the age of the petitioner
concerning his clause-X certificate is taken into consideration.

15. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in
L.P.A. No. 719 of 2015 decided on 20th September 2016 reported in 2016 SCC
OnLine Jhr. 2695 (Gopi Ram vs. CCL), paragraphs 7 and 8, and has submitted
that the employment secured through fraud is vitiated. He has further relied
upon the judgment reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 (
State of Karnataka Anr.
vs. N. Gangaraj), paragraphs Nos. 12, 13, and 15 to submit that the scope of
judicial review is very limited. There is no scope for reconsideration of
materials on record and coming to a different finding once there are concurrent
findings recorded by two authorities. He has also relied upon the judgment
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 (
R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala
Others), paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 to submit that long tenure of service is
irrelevant and in the said case, there was 27 years of service. He has submitted
that in case of giving false certificates, there is no protection of
Article 311 of
the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also relied upon the
judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 332 of 2020, paragraph 12, 13 and 14 to submit
5

that in case of fraud/misrepresentation/impersonation, no relief can be given to
the employee. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported
in (2013) 9 SCC 363 (
Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal Others),
paragraphs 12 to 16 to submit that
the said judgment deals with the
appointment obtained by misrepresentation and also the scope of judicial
review.

16. Arguments concluded.

17. Post this case on 08.04.2024 for judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation