Kailash Chand vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Smt. Mallika Arya, JM.-

The present original application has been directed against the order dated 15.07.2020 whereby the applicant has been dismissed from service (Annexure A-6) and the order dated 02.03.2021 whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected his appeal (Annexure A-8).

The applicant was initially appointed as Ward Boy in the year 1990. He was served with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 on 15.11.2019 for the offence of submitting a forged mark sheet at the time of his appointment. He denied the allegations vide his reply dated 13.12.2019. Being not satisfied with the reply of the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry in which the applicant participated. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report in which charge leveled against the applicant was proved and the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15.07.2020 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved by the penalty, the applicant has preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.03.2021.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and the charge sheet has intentionally been issued to the applicant on 15.11.2019 i.e. just before one year of his retirement i.e. December 2020. The respondents have conducted the inquiry behind the back of the applicant and the inquiry officer has submitted its report only on the basis of the documents received from the school. Neither adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to him nor has any witness from the school been examined. The learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that at the time of interview held on 17.10.1988, the entire original documents submitted by the applicant were verified by the departmental authorities. Therefore, initiation of inquiry regarding genuineness of his mark sheet after 29 years of service is bad in law.

Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply. Based on the contents of the reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that during the inquiry proceedings, the applicant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. However, based on the reply of the applicant with supporting documents as well as the documents received from the school authorities, the applicant was found guilty of the offence of submitting forged mark sheet at the time of appointment. The copy of the inquiry report was provided to the applicant and in response thereto he filed his representation. Thereafter, taking into consideration the inquiry report, evidence on record and points raised by the applicant in his representation, the disciplinary authority has imposed of penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal filed by the applicant was also considered by the Appellate Authority and after affording personal hearing to him, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal. Referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal – 2013 (129) AIC 218, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that giving false information to get employment is an act of moral turpitude and has prayed to dismiss the OA.

We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings and considered the rival submissions as well as the written submissions filed by the applicant’s counsel.

It is a settled principle of law that the Courts / Tribunals cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there is a discrepancy / shortcomings in the decision making process.

From the pleadings, it is evident that the applicant was served with a major penalty charge sheet for the misconduct of producing forged mark sheet at the time of appointment.

From the records, it is evident that the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 15.11.2019. A simple examination of the charge sheet shows that Annexure-I contains article of charges framed against the applicant, Annexure-II contains statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges, Annexure-III contains list of relied upon documents by which article of charges framed against the applicant are proposed to be sustained. The applicant submitted his reply denying the charges. Thereafter, inquiry proceeding have been initiated as per the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

Further, from the inquiry report, it is also evident that a very detailed inquiry has been conducted and the documents listed have been produced and examined. It is also evident from records that ample opportunity was provided to the applicant. Hence, the contention of the applicant that the inquiry was conducted behind his back does not get substantiated from the records.

Furthermore, the applicant has contended that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have not properly appreciated the points raised by him in his representation and his statement and have been interpreted differently than what he had said and intended. However, after examination of case file, we do not find any infirmity in the same.

The applicant has further stated that his replies and the written brief have not been considered by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. On examination of the inquiry report and the orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, we observe that the orders have been passed after examining the applicant’s defence brief and other statements and written brief etc. The Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have come to their respective conclusions on the articles of charge and all legal points raised by the applicant have been considered at appropriate stage.

Hence, looking from any angle, we do not find that the applicant has made any case for himself to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

It is settled principle of law that in OAs challenging the orders in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of the Tribunals is very limited. In a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been held that the judicial review in the disciplinary matters should not be in the form of re-appreciation of evidence. The Courts should only look at the correctness of process and not get into re-evaluation of evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are affirmed or diluted by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless the applicant shows that the order is without jurisdiction; or that there is procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R.Tewari vs. Union of India 2013(7) Scale

In the instant case, from the records, it is evident that there has been substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed for disciplinary proceedings as well as ample opportunity of being heard has been provided to the applicant. Thus it cannot be said that there has been any violation of principle of natural justice and any procedural violation as such which will vitiate the inquiry. There is no iota of evidence to prove allegation of bias, malice or perversity.

It is noted that the applicant has been dismissed from service on the allegation of production of forged mark sheet at the time of interview held on 17.10.1988. The main ground of challenge of the impugned orders is that the initiation of inquiry proceeding in the year 2019 is bad in law. Under Indian service law, an employment secured through fraud, misrepresentation, or forged educational documents is considered void ab initio - Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2020 SCC Online 834. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2006 passed in the case of Ram Saran Vs. IG of Police, CRPF & Ors has held that long service or a termination done just prior to retirement does not grant any immunity or equity to an employee who committed fraud. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that dishonesty or fraud at the time of entry into service pollutes the entire employment lifecycle. No amount of time passed (even 30+ years from 1988) can legalize an appointment that was inherently illegal.

In view of the foregoing discussions and the catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, we find no illegality or any infirmity or any violation of principle of natural justice as well as the relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 in the disciplinary inquiry and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Therefore, we do not find any ground for the applicant to get any relief and the present original application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 254 of 2021 is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member Anand…