Sanjay Kumar vs Employees State Insurance Corporation And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case, the petitioner had appeared in the examination for the post of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff), he was given training of Multi Task

Staff and vide memorandum dated 9.7.2012 was posted in the Employment State Insurance Corporation on the conditions stipulated therein. The

petitioner accepted the offer of appointment unconditionally and, in pursuance to which, the Deputy Director, respondent no.3, issued the office order

no. 232/2012 dated 3.8.2012 whereby the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Multi Tasking Staff with effect from 6.8.2012 along with others.

The petitioner was placed on probation for two years from the date of his joining having attached that the service under the Corporation will be liable

to be terminated by giving one month notice in writing from either side, whereafter, vide order dated 28.1.2016, the Regional Director issued office

order no. 33 of 2016 wherein mentioned the completion of probation satisfactorily with specific dates mentioned against their names. The name of the

petitioner has been mentioned at item no.12 and and vide order no.341/2016 dated 28.10.2016, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion

Committee held on 27.10.2016, the MTS personnel posted as LDC on regular basis. The name of the petitioner is standing on serial no.26.

Accordingly, he was posted and was discharging the duty of LDC, SRO Surat. Later on, it transpired that the petitioner has obtained the service by

playing fraud by way of impersonation as the thumb impression of the petitioner does not tally with the admitted thumb impression which led to

dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

A plea has been taken by the petitioner that he will be deemed to have been confirmed and, as such, he is protected by the statutory provision

incorporated by the ESI Corporation, inasmuch as, he cannot be dismissed from service, making an allegation of impersonation, without affording

proper opportunity of hearing. So, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from illegality as the Tribunal should have given

direction to hold enquiry.

Learned counsel for the ESI Corporation submits that the petitioner has entered into service by fraud, so he cannot claim that he should have been

given protection of hearing.

The person who has entered into service in illegal manner should be pushed out through the door by which he has entered into service. The petitioner

has played fraud as the thumb impression does not tally with the admitted thumb impression and in an identical matter, this Court vide order dated

19.1.2017 passed in CWJC No. 4397 of 2016 has dismissed the writ petitioner.

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, from the records, it is apparently clear that the thumb impression does not tally with the

admitted thumb impression of the petitioner. In such circumstances, naturally the inference would be drawn that he has entered into service by illegal

method i.e. impersonation. The appellant cannot claim a right of protection by way of giving an opportunity of hearing when he himself has adopted a

wrong method for entering into service.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.