Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Anjanappa And 4 Ors. vs G.M., Southern Railway And Ors. on 29 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)SLJ88(CAT)
JUDGMENT Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment observed as under:
"Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of the Judge is not also not expected vis-a-vis infraction of the majesty of law."
It is in this context that the present order has to be viewed.
2. These proceedings have been initiated by this Tribunal on its own motion vide order dated 23.10.2002, which reads as under:
"1. Vide memo dated 9.8.2001 filed by the applicants various original documents in the nature of Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001, Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 as well as original Casual Labour Service Card in respect of five applicants have been filed. The said memo dated 9.8.2001 is neither verified by the applicants nor it is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the respondents has filed additional reply dated 7.8.2002 whereby the authenticity and genuineness of the Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001, Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 as well as Casual Labour Service Card has been questioned. It has been specifically stated that certificate dated 3.7.2001 has been issued by the father of the applicants No. 1 and 5 by misusing his position as a Railway Employee. In Para 5 of the said additional affidavit it has been urged that Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 is a bogus and a concocted document containing the forged signature. Similarly in Para 10 of the said additional affidavit it has been pointed out that the 4th applicant has produced Annexure A-3 i.e., Casual Labourer Service Card as a documentary proof which was printed in July, 1984 under Work Order No. 33134084. According to the respondents casual labour service card is given as a documentary proof of service as provided under Sub-rule 5 of note (8) of Rule 2001 of IREM immediately on engagement of casual labourer. Their contention is after the applicant No. 4 was engaged in the year 1981, the card printed in July 1984 could not have contained an entry for the year 1981. Therefore, it has been alleged that Annexure A-1 to A-5 are not genuine documents.
2. Neither the contents of the reply dated 17.4.2001 nor the additional reply dated 7.8.2001 have been controverted or denied by filing any rejoinder till date. The respondents have made a prayer in Para 6 of the additional affidavit seeking a direction to the applicants to file affidavit and to initiate proceedings for alleged perjury. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Special Judge, Mysore, vide judgment dated 31.7.2001 whereby Shri K. Muniappa father of applicants 1 and 5 besides another official had been convicted for criminal conspiracy and cheating the unemployed youths by falsely promising them appointment in the Southern Railway.
3. We have perused the said documents very carefully and are of the prima facie view that there is substance in the respondents' contention that the documents produced by the applicants vide memo dated 9.8.2001 are concocted and fabricated documents. Hence the applicants are guilty of perjury as well as of other offences. However, before proceeding further, in view of the above facts, we deem it proper to enforce the presence of the applicants before this Tribunal on 28.10.2002 at 10.30 A.M. particularly in view of the provisions of Section 22(3)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. It is noted that the contention raised by the respondents are also serious in nature and needs thorough investigation, the interest of justice also requires that before recording any finding of guilt on the part of the applicants we should give opportunity to the applicants to place their version on the aspect. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the applicants is called upon to ensure presence of 5 applicants before this Tribunal on 28.10.2002 at 10.30 A.M. We wish to make it clear that these proceedings are initiated by us suo motu as it has been experienced in the recent times that litigants approach the Courts/Tribunal with false and fabricated documents which tendency needs to be curbed heavily.
5. The Registry is directed to issue notices on urgent basis to all the applicants and give number to these proceedings.
Ordered accordingly."
3. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the five applicants have filed their affidavits. The respondents, Railway Administration as well as Shri R. Shanmugam, Section Engineer at Permanent Way Inspector's Office, Whitefield, Bangalore, have also filed their affidavits, rebutting the contentions raised by the five applicants.
4. We have heard both sides at length and perused the documents carefully.
5. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to note certain factual aspects of the present case which are: that the five applicants filed O.A. Nos. 300 and 334 to 337/ 2000 seeking their regularisation as Khalasi, Group D post in Mysore Division, based on Casual Labour Service Cards, Annexures A-1 to A-5. The respondents in their reply dated 17.4.2001 denied the applicants' engagement as casual labourers. According to them a thorough verification of the records was made in the office of Permanent Way Inspector, Inspector of Works at Bangarpet and Permanent Way Inspector, Sakleshpur, but in none of the records maintained in the said offices, the applicants name were found and accordingly it was confirmed by the authorities that none of these applicants had worked either at Bangarpet or Sakleshpur during the period mentioned against each in the casual labour service cards produced by them. The applicants vide memo dated 9.8.2001, placed before this Tribunal three sets of documents (a) the originals of Annexures A-1 to A-5 i.e., casual labour service cards in respect of five applicants; (b) Certificate of Endorsement No. B/P 407VII/Mys/CLa/Vol.VII dated 3.7.2001 signed by one K.A. Muniappa in the office of Carriage Repair Shop, Southern Railway, Mysore, as well as (c) Verified Certificate No. P. 407/VII/BWT dated 5.7.2001 signed by one Shanmugam, Section Engineer, P.Way, Southern Railway, Bangarpet.
6. The authenticity and genuineness of these 3 sets of documents have been disputed by the respondents and accordingly they have made elaborate arguments on these aspects which will be considered hereinafter.
7. Since prima facie it was found that all three set of documents are forged documents produced by the applicants to secure favourable orders for their regularisation, the above mentioned show cause notice dated 23.10.2002 was issued asking the applicants to submit their version and defence on the said action.
8. All the five applicants have filed their reply statement dated 30.10.2002 whereby they have taken almost identical pleas. As such it would be suffice to note the contentions raised by the first applicant in the said reply statement. A perusal of the reply statement dated 30.10.2002 nowhere contain any statement about the apology for producing false and fabricated document. On the other hand Para 4 of the said statement states that "I am not aware of being the first applicant whether the cards issued to us are fabricated or forged or concocted one." There is no mention about other sets of documents, except the one which is being dealt with hereinafter. As per Para 2 of the said reply statement, the applicant has taken a specific stand that the endorsement dated 3.7.2001 was issued by the father of the applicants No. 1 and 5 not in the capacity of their father with the intention to officially favour them but "only on the strength of being a seniormost official of the department of Railway and Working President of All India SC/ST Union Employees Association, South Zone, Southern Railway. He has identified the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 issued by Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, Bangarpet, for having worked at the relevant point of time......"
9. The first question which arises from the bare perusal of these documents is whether an Endorsement dated 3.7.2001 could be signed and issued by the father of applicants No. 1 & 5 of a documents titled Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, issued by the Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, Bangarpet. Learned Counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that under no circumstance Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001 could be identified and Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, which had not been in existence on the said date of 3.7.2001. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents this part of the contention of the applicants is on the face of it is nothing but a total falsehood and yet another attempt to mislead this Tribunal. If a Verified Certificate was issued on 5.7.2001 by the Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, Bangarpet, as noted hereinabove, it could not have been verified prior to the said date. It appears that such an endorsement dated 3.7.2001 is yet another attempt on the part of the applicants to mislead this Tribunal in order to secure a material gain for themselves.
10. Coming to the next set of documents i.e., the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, verified by the Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, under the signature of one Shri R. Shanmugam, it is noted that Shri Shanmugam has filed an affidavit which is duly sworn in before the Oath Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, dated 13.11.2002, wherein it has been specifically stated that he was the Permanent Way Inspector, BWT from 17.11.1997 to 8.5.2001. It has also been pointed out that the 3rd respondent in the O.A. directed him to inspect the copy of the document produced by the applicant bearing No. PW/407VII/BWT dated 5.7.2001 with the captioned Verified Certificate, which according to him is a concocted document with his forged signature. In the said affidavit, Shri Shanmugam, has stated that he was transferred from the said post of Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, Bangarpet, to work as Safety Councillor, Engineering, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Bangalore, vide transfer and posting order dated 5.4.2001. According to the said Shri Shanmugam, he had not affixed his signature on the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 and none of the five persons/candidates who are the applicants herein nor any person on their behalf approached him for issuing the said certificate. The applicants have not rebutted the contents of this affidavit dated 13.11.2002 filed by Shri Shanmugam. We have compared the signature of R. Shanmugam appearing on the affidavit dated 13.11.2002 as well as Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, which are at variance. From bare look of these signatures appearing in the affidavit dated 13.11.2002 as well as the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, it is clear that the latter certificate dated 5.7.2001 is a forged document. Though the seal affixed on the said certificate dated 5.7.2001, as per the respondents, is genuine seal of the said official, but according to the respondents, the said seal had also been misused by the applicants. According to the respondents this is another deliberate act on the part of the applicants to make this Tribunal to believe the genuineness of the document, which in fact is a forged and fabricated document. According to them, the act on the part of the applicants to produce such forged and fabricated document is an intentional and deliberate act on their part.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Para 3 of the rejoinder statement dated 13.11.2002 wherein it has been specifically stated that Shri K.A. Muniappa, father of applicants No. 1 and 5 who was working as a Senior Section Engineer at C&R Shop, Central Workshop, Mysore South, Southern Railway, Mysore, was involved in a job racket and was prosecuted by CBI in CC No. 2/1989, convicted for the said offence by Special Judge, Mysore, vide his judgment dated 31.7.2002. It has further been contended that Shri Muniappa was not authorised to verify the certificate dated 5.7.2001 allegedly issued by. Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, which allegedly has been endorsed by him vide Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001. According to the respondents Shri K. Muniappa the father of applicants 1 & 5 had never worked at Bangarpet Section and as such was neither competent or authorised to identify the Verified Certificate issued by Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also urged that it is not the case of the applicants that the author of the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 i.e., Shri Shanmugam, which had been annexed by them vide memo dated 9.8.2001 is the same person who had filed affidavit dated 13.11.2002. Despite the opportunity granted to the applicants they have failed to explain the circumstances under which the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 was issued by Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section, as well as the Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001. The contents of Certificate of Endorsement as well Verified Certificate are almost identical. Even the font used in typing the said document is same. It appears that both the documents are original and carbon copy respectively typed at the same time on the same typewriter.
12. Coming to the first set of documents it is seen that the said Casual Labour Service Cards have been allegedly signed by one N. Subbarayan. We have perused the said original cards in respect of each applicant and it is found that all these certificates bear the signature of one N. Subbarayan, as Permanent Way Inspector, Southern Railway, Bangarpet. Each certificate contains different dates of their engagement. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Para 6 of their rejoinder statement wherein it has been pointed out that one Subbarayan was a Railway servant & was posted in the office of Permanent Way Inspector, BWT/SR and worked therein between 4.10.1984 and 15.11.1986. According to the respondents the official records maintained in their office which contain the signatures of N. Subbarayan are different than the one which appear on each of the Casual Labour Service Cards produced by the applicants. On comparison of signature of N. Subbarayan with the cards produced before us vis a vis from his personal file as well as accounts register it is clear that even the said Casual Labour Service Cards are forged and concocted documents. According to the respondents the said official was transferred and relieved from the said office on 15.11.1986 and had reported at Arakonam/Madras Division. Therefore, it has been contended by the respondents that even the casual labour service cards are bogus and forged documents. The respondents have also drawn our attention to the fact that in the reply to O.A. dated 17.4.2001 in Para 10, it had been contended and pointed out that the casual labourers are issued such cards on their initial engagement, and the card produced before this Tribunal as a documentary proof in support of their contention that they had worked during the period mentioned therein, were printed during July 1994 under work order No. 33134084 while it contained an entry for the year 1981. According to the respondents if the card itself was published and got printed during July 1994, under no circumstance, it could have contained an entry of the year 1981. These material contentions have not been disputed by the applicants. Even in their reply statement dated 30.10.2002 no attempt has been made to explain these aspects. On the other hand the applicants have tried to justify that the three set of documents produced vide memo dated 9.8.2001 as the genuine documents. The factum of conviction of Muniappa has also not been disputed, rather a statement has been made that he had been convicted for the instigation of rival colleagues within the department and the said contention has no relevance to the facts mentioned in the present case. In Para 4 the first applicant has contended "I am not aware of being the first applicant whether the cards issued to us are fabricated or forged or concocted one." Even from the above statement it could be seen that the applicants have not disputed the respondents contention that all the three sets of documents are forged and concocted. According to the applicants the responsibility for issuing such certificates lies purely on the Department of Rail way.
13. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents the production of three sets of documents before this Tribunal in support of claim is a wilful, intentional, deliberate and calculated attempt on the part of the applicants to secure a favourable order and also to seek a positive direction from this Tribunal for their regularisation in service by the Railway. Our attention has also been drawn to the provisions of Sections 191, 193, 197 and 199 of the IPC read with provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It would be relevant to note that under the above provisions of IPC, the applicants were legally bound under an oath and express provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Rules made thereunder to make a true and correct declaration. Instead of this the applicants have made a declaration in O.A., which was known and believed to be false on their part. As per Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a person aggrieved by an order can invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by making an application for redressal of his grievance. Under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Appendix A Form No. 1, the applicants are required to state that they have not suppressed any material facts and contents of the said application are true to their personal knowledge and the paras therein are also true on legal advice. These statement and certificate require under the above provisions are to be construed as requiring issuing and furnishing a certificate under the provisions of IPC in the aforementioned sections. In the present case the applicants have initially annexed only the first set of documents i.e., casual labour service cards being Annexures A-1 to A-5 along with O.A. and in verification portion have stated that the contents of the application are true to the best of knowledge, information and belief. Similarly a certificate was also appended therein that there is no suppression of any material facts.
14. We have considered rival contentions raised in the present case minutely and objectively. We found from the record that all three sets of documents produced by the applicants are forged and have been produced by the applicants in order to secure a favourable order from this Tribunal. They have even forged the signatures of Shri R. Shanmugam as well as Shri N. Subbarayan on Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 and Casual Labour Service Cards respectively. Shri K. Muniappa, father of applicants No. 1 and 5 was neither a competent nor authorised person to identify the Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001. Merely because he is a seniormost official of Department of Railway and working as All India SC/CT Employees Union Association, Southern Zone, Southern Railway, does not confer a power upon him to issue a certificate of endorsement dated 3.7.2001 of a document which had not yet come into effect or existence. Admittedly the Verified Certificate issued under, the signature of Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet, had been issued on 5.7.2001 and as such its endorsement could not had been made on 3.7.2001 i.e. prior to the date of its existence. It is not in dispute that Shri K. Muniappa had never functioned in the office of Permanent Way Inspector, Bangarpet Section at Bangarpet at any point of time. It cannot be said that someone else is responsible for preparation of the 3 sets of documents produced by the applicant for the simple reason that it is the applicants who are the gainers from the said documents by producing them before this Tribunal. The applicants have not disclosed the identify of those persons who have issued the Casual Labour Service Card as well as Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001, despite opportunity granted to them to explain their case in detail and prove their bona fides they have failed to use the said opportunity.
15. The issues raised primarily in the present case is whether the statement made and the records produced by the applicants has, in fact, before this Tribunal, caused any obstruction to the administration of justice, bringing it within the purview of Section 2(c) (iii) of the Act, 1971 and if the answer to the above issue is in the affirmative than and in that event to what result. As we have discussed in detail hereinabove, the 3 sets of documents produced by the applicants are forged and concocted documents, which has been done with a view to mislead this Tribunal and thus thereby interfere with the due course of justice by attempting to secure an order based on false and fabricated documents and thereby to reach an incorrect conclusion. Incidentally there is no plea of justification and the learned Counsel appearing for the said applicants had not even pleaded any guilt or submitted any apology much less than unconditional before this Tribunal for taking such course of action, a serious view has to be taken of the applicants misdemeanoer and the attempt to interfere with the due course of justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murry and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr., (2000) 2 SCC 367, considered the effect and consequences of false statement made before the Court by the parties and accordingly proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act for filing the false affidavit, for submitting the wrong assertion of facts in an affidavit filed before the said Court. After taking note of various provisions of the Contempt of Court Act as well as law on the said subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the specific conclusion that, whether the parties have obtained a definite advantage or not is wholly immaterial in the matter of commission of offence under the Contempt of Courts Act, though the same would be a relevant factor in the context of punishment to be imposed against a contemner.
16. The fact remains as to whether the production of false and concocted document and also making a false statement in the affidavit dated 30.10.2002, the applicants' action impeded the course of justice by reason of which definite advantage would have been gained by the applicants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on the decision rendered by it in Afzal v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 388, whereby the Court has taken a serious view of tendency to file false affidavit or fabricated documents and placing them as part of the records before the Courts, imposed the fine of Rs. 2,500 each so as to subserve the ends of justice against the respondent contemners therein.
17. In (2001) 5 SCC 501, In re : Bineet Kumar Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again considered the issue as to whether a party has used fabricated and forged order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purpose of conferring some benefits to a group of persons and the Hon'ble Court held that: "Nothing is more incumbent upon the Courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the Court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have utilised an order of a Court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. A perusal of Section 191 of IPC, which reads as under:
"191. Giving false evidence--Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.--A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.--A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know."
would show that whenever a person legally bound by an oath or by an expression of law to state the truth makes any statement which is false which he knows or believes to be false is guilty of offence under the said provision. Similarly in Section 197 whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law and which is admissible in evidence, which he knows or believes to be false in any material point is also guilty of giving a false evidence. The said section reads as under:
"197. Issuing or signing false certificate.--Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
To the same effect is the provision made under Section 199 of IPC. Though we are not holding a trial under IPC but the applicants who were legally bound by the express provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act to submit an application under Section 19 read with Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, were required to give a specific verification to the effect that they "have not suppressed any material facts." (emphasis supplied) As we have recorded earlier the Casual Labour Service Card, first set of document was filed along with the main O.A. by the applicants, which is totally false and fabricated document and the verification made by the applicants in the said O.A. is far from truth and as such the applicants were also guilty of giving false evidence before this Tribunal under the aforesaid provisions of IPC.
19. Having a conspectus of the whole issue and the facts of the present case we are of the considered opinion that the applicants cannot escape the liability of being held guilty of contempt by reason of definite and deliberate false statement based on fabricated documents, which are contrary to the facts and the records. There exists no extenuating circumstance to come to any other conclusion than to hold that the applicants are guilty of causing obstruction in the due administration of justice and accordingly liable to be punished.
20. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the applicants are guilty of producing false, fabricated and concocted documents before this Tribunal. Since the applicants belong to lower income group and are not in service as on date, we do deem it fit to impose a fine of Rs. 1000 each, so as to subserve the ends of justice against the five applicants.
We order accordingly.
ORDER Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
1. When separate order was pronounced today in these proceedings the applicants No. 1,4 and 5 alone were present in the Court despite the fact that vide order dated 15.11.2002, all the applicants were bound down to appear before this Tribunal at 10.30 AM. Learned Counsel for the applicants has invited our attention to the fact that there is some disruption in train services from Mysore, place they belong to, and hence applicants No. 2 and 3 could not appear before this Tribunal.
2. Since we have passed a detailed order in the present proceedings today, we grant time to all the five applicants for depositing the fine imposed by us by 31st December, 2002. We direct the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, to produce applicants No. 2 and 3 Shri Vasudeva Reddy, son of Venkataramana Reddy, residing at No. 283, Mahadevapuram, N.C. Palya Post, Mysore 570 008 and Shri Quiser Baig, son of Noor Mohammed residing at No. 158/B, Railway Quarters, Mysore South, Mysore-570 008, before us on 2.1.2003 at 10.30 AM in case they fail to deposit the said fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) each by 31.12.2002. In the event, the applicants No. 2 and 3 deposit the said fine so imposed, Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, need not produce them before us on the date so fixed.
We order accordingly.