AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-SAIL in the admission stage of the writ application.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, (herein after referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in O.A. No. 051/00147/2016 / M.A. No. 051/00220/2018, whereby the application, filed by the applicant-respondent, challenging the order of his termination from service was allowed with all consequential benefits, quashing the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of removal from service, as well as the order dated 13.7.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the same.
According to the case of the applicant-respondent, as is apparent from the order passed by the Tribunal, is that he had been appointed in Bokaro Steel Plant on 19.11.1982, as Jr. Operator, and in due course he was given promotion to the post of Jr. Officer, in the year 2009. As there was a complaint that the respondent belonged to Yadav (Gwala) caste, though at the time of initial appointment, he had submitted his caste certificate showing him as Rajwar, belonging to Scheduled Caste, the petitioner Company initiated a preliminary inquiry into the matter, and a report was received from the office of Block Development officer, Falka, in the District of Katihar, State of Bihar, stating that though the caste certificate issued in the year 1979 could not be verified, but it was reported that the respondent belonged to Gwala caste. The applicant-respondent was asked to submit another caste certificate and he also submitted another caste certificate, issued from the office of Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro, in which, also he was shown of the same caste Rajwar, belonging to Scheduled Caste.
The memo of charge was issued to the applicant-respondent, stating that He had submitted the caste certificate dated 2.3.1979, issued by the Block Development officer, Falka, in the District of Katihar, State of Bihar, at the time of his appointment, but during the verification of caste certificate, it was found that he belonged to Gwala caste. He was subjected to departmental proceeding, by an Enquiry Committee. The finding of the Enquiry Committee has been brought on record as Annexure-5, to this writ application, which shows that the Enquiry Committee was not able to find the respondent wholly guilty. The report shows that the respondent was found only partially guilty, for getting the subsequent caste certificate from a place other than his permanent address. The applicant-respondent, however, was given the second show cause notice, along with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee, and by order dated 11.2.2013, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority, finding him guilty of the charge. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the said order, by its order dated 31.7.2013.
It is an admitted position that no descending note was given to the report of the Enquiry Committee, by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of issuing the second show cause notice to the respondent.
The respondent, thereafter, moved the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 051/00147/2016 / M.A. No. 051/00220/2018, which was adjudicated upon and the Tribunal came to the finding that in both the certificates, the applicant-respondent was shown to be belonging to Rajwar caste, which admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste, and his initial appointment could not have faulted on this score. The Tribunal has also found that the place of residence of the applicant-respondent had changed to Bokaro in the year 1979 on account of his joining in Bokaro Steel Plant, and he had submitted the new Caste Certificate from the new place of residence, and accordingly, the subsequent caste certificate could not be doubted only on account of change in the place of residence. The Tribunal also found that in the termination order dated 11.2.2013 as well as in the decision taken by the Appellate Authority dated 31.7.2013, they had only indicated that the applicant-respondent had given the false information relating to his caste and place of residence at the time of initial appointment, and on that basis, the applicant-respondent could not have been terminated from service. Accordingly, the order dated 11.2.2013, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as also the order dated 31.7.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority were quashed, with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Company submits that the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the respondent had submitted the caste certificate, issued by the Block Development Officer, Falka, in which, he was shown to be the resident of Village and P.O. Morsanda, P.S. Falka, District-Katihar in the State of Bihar, showing that he was belonging to Rajwar caste. Upon the initial enquiry, made by the Company, it was informed that the respondent belonged to Gwala caste. On that basis, the memorandum of charge was served to the applicant as he belonged to Gwala Caste. The subsequent caste certificate was issued with a different address in the District of Bokaro. Learned counsel for the petitioner Company submitted that there was difference in the residence in both the caste certificates, which also created doubt in the caste certificate and, accordingly, there was no illegality in the order, passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also affirmed by the Appellate Authority, imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the respondent on that count. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Company and upon going through the record, we find that the memorandum of charges submitted by the petitioner doubted the caste of the respondent on the ground that in the preliminary enquiry, the office of the Block Development Officer, Falka, though had stated that the caste certificate could not be verified, but stated that the respondent belonged to Gwala caste, and on that basis he was subjected to departmental proceeding. The fact remains that in the departmental enquiry, there is no finding that the respondent belonged to Gwala caste and not to Rajwar caste. Even the Enquiry Committee came to the conclusion that the applicant could not be found fully guilty of the charge. The respondent was found only partially guilty, for getting the subsequent caste certificate from a place other than permanent address. Thereafter the disciplinary authority gave second show cause notice to the applicant, but without any descending note, assigning the reasons as to why it did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Committee, and after the consideration of second show cause submitted by the respondent, the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority, on the ground that the charge was proved.
There is thus, an apparent error on record in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as the charge framed was that the respondent did not belong to Rajwar caste, rather he actually belonged to Gwala caste, and this charge could not be established in the departmental proceeding, and the Enquiry Committee stated in its report that the charge against the respondent could not be proved fully. There is no finding that the respondent belonged to Gwala caste and not to Rajwar caste. As such, we fail to understand as to how the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the respondent was proved. Even otherwise, the caste certificate, submitted by the respondent at the time of his appointment could not be held to be a false certificate, only on the basis of the fact that the subsequent caste certificate was issued from a different place, as admittedly there is no finding that the applicant was not the permanent resident of Village and P.O. Morsanda, P.S. Falka, District-Katihar in the State of Bihar, and admittedly after getting job in Bokaro Steel Plant, he was living at Bokaro for the last several years and, as such, when he was asked to furnish another caste certificate, he got the caste certificate from the place, where he was presently residing. Further, in absence of any descending note by the Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Committee, showing the reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report, the respondent's services could not have been terminated by the Disciplinary Authority.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 19.12.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, in O.A. No. 051/00147/2016 / M.A. No. 051/00220/2018, quashing the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the penalty of removal from service, as well as the order dated 13.7.2013, passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the same, with all consequential benefits, worth any interference in the writ jurisdiction.
There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine.