Ramesh Chandra Nath vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

I. Mahanty, J.—In this writ application, the Petitioner-Ramesh Chandra Nath has sought to challenge the Order Dated 6.9.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.253 of 1993 by which the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Petitioner''s original application seeking to challenge the order of termination passed pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding.

The relevant facts of the present case are mat the Petitioner had been selected & appointed as a Postal Assistant in Bhubaneswar Division in the year 1981. He claims to have made an application in response to an advertisement issued by the Opp. Parties & continued as such till 28.8.1985 when the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar Division issued a memorandum of charge alleging therein that the Petitioner secured his appointment relying upon a false Scheduled Tribe certificate & therefore, has exhibited lack of integrity & conduct unbecoming of postal employees & thereby contravened Rule-3 of the CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In response to the aforesaid memorandum of charge, the Petitioner submitted his explanation, inter alia, contending therein that the application produced by the Department in course, of inquiry did not belong to him & that the signature appended to the application was not his signature nor he ever applied for the post of Postal Assistant on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. It is further alleged that the original application filed by the Petitioner had not been produced before the Inquiring Officer. The aforesaid contentions raised by the Petitioner was rejected by the Inquiring Officer & ultimately, the order of termination of service was passed against which the Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application.

Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the evidence of P.W.39 recorded in course of inquiry, who had deposed as follows:

I am also of the opinion that the person who wrote the blue enclosed writings stamped & marked S-39. to S-104, A-21, A-21/1, A-22/2 to A-25, A-25/1, A-25/2 in Ext-72 purported to be of Ramesh Chandra Nath did not write red enclosed writings. Similarly stamped & marked Q-25 in Ext-2.The reasons are the difference in general & individual characteristic of the handwritings.

Apart from the above, Learned Counsel raised a further plea as to whether an order of punishment of termination of service is tenable in law when the Department had failed to produce the material document i.e. the application form submitted by the Petitioner before the authority for selection to the post of Postal Assistant.

The plea of the Opp. Parties in the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner had applied for the Post against S.T. vacancies notified, for the first half of the year 1981 & on the basis of the attested copy of S.T. certificate & information furnished in the application form by the Petitioner, he had been selected as a Postal Assistant against a reserved vacancy for S.T. candidate. Although the Petitioner attempts to deny having applied as a S.T. candidate, the application form submitted by him was accompanied with a S.T. certificate. Had the Petitioner been considered as a General candidate, he could not have been selected as the percentage of marks secured by him in HSC examination with bonus marks for higher qualification was much less than the percentage of marks secured by the last candidate selected against open category vacancies. Therefore, from this fact alone, it is evident that the Petitioner would not have been entitled for selection as a open category candidate & had, in fact, been selected as a S.T. candidate.

The genuineness, of the caste certificate submitted by him was doubted & the CBI conducted an inquiry to the same & the finding was that the Petitioner did not belong to S.T. community & that no S.T. caste certificate bearing No. 467 dated 17.2.1980 was issued by the S.D.O., Kendrapara in favour of the Petitioner. Apart from this, the Tribunal has come to a finding that the Petitioner had taken only one ground before the Inquiring Officer in defence that any action taken by him prior to joining in service, no disciplinary proceeding under the CCA/CCS Rules could be initiated against him.

On going through the show cause reply filed by the Petitioner before the Inquiring Officer, it is clear that the present plea of the Petitioner was also raised before the Tribunal & the same was rejected & the Tribunal held that such a plea is clearly an after thought. The Tribunal on this aspect came to the following finding:

As the Inquiring Officer has come to the finding that the application form has been submitted by him on the basis of evidence given before him, it is not possible for the Tribunal to come to a different finding. It is also not reasonable to accept that some other application form forged by some body else has been placed in the record. This contention is therefore held to be without any merit & is rejected.

We find no reason to differ from the view expressed by the Tribunal as noted herein above. Apart from the same, it is important to take note of the fact that in course of inquiry proceeding, it was proved beyond doubt that the ''caste certificate'' issued in favour of the Petitioner was forged. The further plea of the Petitioner is that he had not been informed that he was given the job against the S.T. vacancy, is merely noted for the purpose of being rejected. There is no provision to inform a candidate under which category he or she has been recruited. The fact remains that had the Petitioner not been recruited against the S.T. vacancy, he did not possess the necessary merit to be selected against open category. Therefore, it leaves no doubt in our mind that the interpolation in the application form was made only by the Petitioner, which may not have been made by in his own hand as deposed by P.W.39, but he remains the only beneficiary to such interpolation, due to which, the Petitioner was treated as a S.T. candidate & given the necessary appointment.

In view of the above, since the Petitioner himself was the sole beneficiary of the interpolation made in the application form & also the sole beneficiary of a fake S.T. certificate, such a person cannot be allowed to contend that he cannot be held responsible for the same, since the entire exercise had been made only to benefit the Petitioner & nobody else.

In the light of the discussions made above, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal & accordingly, dismiss the Writ Petition & affirm the order passed by the Tribunal.

L. Mohapatra, J.

I agree.