Sri C. Nataraja Swamy vs The Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Mysore City Division, Bannimantap Road, Mysore

Ram Mohan Reddy

Petitioner, when appointed as driver in a regular recruitment process under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants Cadre & Recruitment Rules, submitted a transfer certificate declaring/certifying his educational qualification, date of birth and other particulars, since the educational qualification for appointment to the said post is pass in 4th Std. That, document was reported, to be fake and fabricated, on verification. Disciplinary proceeding when commenced by issue of articles of charge, followed by a domestic enquiry, extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, nevertheless, petitioner did not adduce evidence of the signatory to the transfer certificate to establish its genuiness. The enquiry officer reported a finding that the charge was proved, following which the disciplinary authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, held the petitioner guilty of the charge and accordingly, by order cit. 19/11/2003, directed removal of the name of the petitioner from the list of trainees and dismissed him from service.

That order when called in question in a petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was registered as IID No. 12/2004 before the Labour Court at Mysore, whence the respondent-employer entered appearance, resisted the claim by filing statement of objections, based upon which the Labour Court framed issues, one of which related to the validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties entered trial, examined their witnesses and marked documents, whereafterwards on 16/7/2010, the petitioner''s counsel filed a memo admitting the fairness of the procedure followed in the domestic enquiry, whence the issue was answered in the affirmative, holding the enquiry as fair and proper. Petitioner though extended an opportunity to adduce evidence'' over victimization, did not do so. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record and the evidence marshalled in the enquiry, held that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine and therefore the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish its genuineness, by, in the least, examining the author of the transfer certificate. Regard being had to certain opinions of the Apex Court, the Labour Court concluded that the respondent-employer was fully justified in removing the name of the petitioner from the list of trainees and terminating his services, by award dt. 24/9/2010. Hence this petition.

It is indisputable that in terms of Regulation 4(a) of the KSRLC (Cadre & Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, if the appointee is shown to have filed a false and fabricated record, while seeking the appointment in the respondent Corporation, in the process of regular recruitment, is liable to be removed from service. The transfer certificate, basis for establishing the required qualification, date of birth and other necessary particulars for appointment in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation as a driver, when found to be fake on investigation, it was for the petitioner to establish, by cogent evidence, that the document was genuine. The least that the petitioner could have done was to examine the author of the transfer certificate when an opportunity was extended to him in the domestic enquiry. Failure on the part of the petitioner to examine the witness, it is needless to state that there was no proof over the validity or genuineness of the transfer certificate produced by him at the time of appointment.

In my considered opinion, on an examination of the award impugned, the findings are not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity occasioning any grave injustice to the petitioner, calling for interferenee.

Petition, devoid of merit, is accordingly rejected.