Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Nath Ahir vs Union Of India on 6 December, 2023
(RESERVED ON 21.11.2023)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
This the 06th day of December, 2023
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1601 OF 2011
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER(A)
Ram Nath Ahir, aged about 59+ years, Son of Babua Ahir,
Resident of Village Kador, Post Suriyawana, District Sant
Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi).
......... Applicant
By Advocate: Sri S.K. Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Eastern
Railway, Fairy Place, Kolkata.
2. Additional General Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah,
Kolkata -14.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah.
4. Sri A.K. Bhuniya, Personnel officer, Workshop Belur
Road, Eastern Railway, Liluah district Howrah, West
Bengal pin -711204.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Anil Kumar
ORDER
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J By means of this OA, the applicant has filed this Original Application under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):
1. "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing both the impugned orders dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure A-1 & A-2) with all consequential benefit as if the same was never passed.Page 1 of 13
2. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. the cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. In nutshell, the case of the applicant is that he was initially engaged as casual labour in the year 1972. On completion of requisite number of working days, he was granted temporary status. Thereafter, his services came to be regularized on the post of Porter w.e.f 19.10.1976 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1952. According to the applicant, Gram Pradhan of the village concerned issued a certificate mentioning the date of birth of the applicant as 01.01.1952 and on the basis thereof the Medical Officer examined the applicant at the time of screening. Thereafter, the applicant was sent for training for the post of Shunting in the year 1979 wherein he has been declared successful and on the basis thereof, he was posted as Shunting Man at Baruipur district 24 Pargana. It is averred in the OA that in the year 1983 the applicant appeared in the departmental examination for promotion in Group „C‟ post under the quota meant for Group „D‟ employees on the basis of seniority. The applicant claims that he never submitted any transfer certificate or marksheet in the department. The applicant further pleads that on being declared successful in the departmental examination, the applicant was posted as Commercial Clerk.
2.1 According to the OA, on completion of requisite years of service in the cadre of Commercial Clerk, he was promoted as Head Clerk in the year 2004 and later on he was promoted as Chief Booking Clerk in the year 2010.
2.2 One Sri Ghanshyam Yadav made a complaint before the respondents on 14.09.2009 alleging therein that the applicant has submitted forged marksheet as well as certificate in obtaining the appointment. On receipt of the aforesaid Page 2 of 13 complaint, a letter was sent by the vigilance section to said Sri Ghanshyam Yadav about the genuineness of the complaint. To this, said Sri Ghanshyam Yadav in his reply has stated that he has not made any complaint against the applicant. Thereafter, the matter enquired from Sewa Shram Intermediate College, Suriyawana, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) and on enquiry, the case was closed. It is alleged in the OA that a complaint has been made by some imposter before the respondents alleging therein that the applicant in securing the appointment has wrongly mentioned his date of birth. On the basis thereof, the respondent no. 4 threatened the applicant by demanding illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 2 Lacs to resolve the dispute regarding his date of birth. According to the OA, the date of birth of the applicant (01.01.1952) has been recorded/mentioned in the service record on the basis of the assessment as made by the Medical Officer at the time of screening in the year 1976. Upon receipt of the aforementioned complaint, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter/show cause notice dated 16.11.2011 to the applicant for termination of his services due to alteration of his date of birth requiring him to submit his reply within 10 days. To this, the applicant submitted his reply on 07.12.2011 stating therein that his correct date of birth is 01.01.1952 and the same has been recorded in the Voter card, PAN card, Kutumb register as well as in other documents. The applicant further pleads that he never produced any transfer certificate at the time of appointment and his actual name is "Ram Nath Ahir" Son of Babua Ahir and the same has been mentioned in his service records. He further submits that he does not know Sri Ram Nath Yadav, whose name has been mentioned in the complaint.
2.3 The respondent no. 4 by means of the letter dated 15.07.2011 requiring the applicant to submit the School Leaving Certificate stating therein that his name, date of birth Page 3 of 13 as well as his father‟s name and also the name of the school/college from where he studied do not tally with the certificate submitted by him at the time of appointment in the year 1976. In this regard, the applicant submits that he never submitted any certificate. The applicant further submits that he never misrepresented any fact before the respondents regarding his academic qualification as well as his date of birth. The applicant further averred that a vigilance inquiry was conducted against him wherein he was required to appear before it on 23.09.2011. On the date fixed, the applicant appeared before the vigilance inquiry, wherein the applicant replied all the questions put to him without concealing any fact with a further mention that in all the documents viz. Voter Id, PAN Card, Kutumb register, etc, his date of birth has been shown as 01.01.1952. The said date of birth has also reflected in the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan.
2.4 It is the case of the applicant that he was neither given the copy of the complaint nor he was given the alleged certificate submitted by Sri Ramesh Yadav nor a copy of the order by means of which the approval has been granted by the Additional General Manager for alteration of his date of birth. On the basis of the above, according to the applicant, the action taken by the respondents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. However, the services of the applicant came to be terminated vide order dated 12.12.2011. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority (General Manager) by taking numerous grounds in support of his claim with a prayer to set aside the punishment order as passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, this OA.
3. The respondents, in opposition, have filed detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that the applicant was appointed as Porter under Eastern Railway w.e.f. 19.10.1976 and on the basis of the certificate issued by the Page 4 of 13 Principal, Sewa Shram Intercollege Suraiwan district Bhadohi, his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1952 in the service records. As per the transfer certificate submitted by the applicant at the time of his appointment on the post of Porter, he passed high school examination from the aforesaid institution. The respondents have further pleaded that the applicant was promoted to the post of Commercial Clerk w.e.f. 07.04.1983 on the basis of his seniority. Pursuant to recommendations of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 the designation of Commercial Clerk and Head Commercial Clerk was re-designated as Chief Commercial Clerk and the same has been shown against the applicant in the year 2010. The respondents further took a plea that the applicant had never submitted any certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan at the time of his appointment; whereas he submitted a Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal, Sewa Shram Intercollege Suraiwan district Bhadohi bearing registration no. 2144 showing his date of birth as 01.01.1952. The said certificate was verified/certified by the Principal concerned and on verification the Principal of the aforesaid institution informed vide letter dated 30.06.2011 that the date of birth of the applicant is 01.01.1946 as recorded in the register at serial no. 2144.
3.1 The respondents specifically denied that the respondent no. 4 had ever demanded any illegal gratification/bribe from the applicant nor the same was witnessed by anyone and nor any complaint to this effect was made by the applicant to the higher authority. In absence thereof, the allegation made by the applicant to this effect falls to ground. The respondents have further pleaded that there is sufficient evidence/material against the applicant, which would show that he has submitted false and fabricated Transfer Certificate in order to secure the appointment.
Page 5 of 133.2 The respondents have also stated that it is trite law that if any appointment is secured by submitting a false and fabricated document/certificate, it can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Pursuant to the provisions contained in paragraph 225 read with sub para 4 (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume 1, it has been decided by the competent authority (General Manager) that since the applicant has altered his date of birth from 01.01.1946 to 01.01.1952 in the official record including the service book, a show cause notice has been issued vide letter dated 16.11.2011 requiring the applicant to submit his reply, to which reply was submitted by the applicant on 07.12.2011 wherein the applicant has failed to produce any valid evidence/proof of his date of birth as 01.01.1952. On verification, the Transfer Certificate submitted by the applicant was found to be false and fabricated one as wrong date of birth of the applicant was mentioned therein, which was submitted by him at the time of his appointment. Consequently, the correct date of birth of the applicant was stand altered from 01.01.1952 to 01.01.1946 in all the official records including the service book. On the basis thereof, the applicant had to be superannuated w.e.f. 31.12.2005 and as such his services beyond 31.12.2005 is deemed to be irregular and illegal one. However, his services came to be terminated vide letter dated 12.12.2011.
3.3 The respondents at the cost of repetition state that the applicant has only submitted Transfer Certificate at the time of his appointment, which was issued in the name of „Ram Nath Yadav‟ and on the basis thereof, the applicant obtained the appointment on the post in question. The respondents have also denied that the applicant has ever filed any copy of Birth-cum- Death Register which is being maintained by the Gram Pradhan at the time of his initial appointment. On receipt of the complaint from one Sri Ramesh Yadav regarding the wrong Page 6 of 13 date of birth of the applicant, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter dated 15.07.2011 requiring the applicant to submit School Leaving Certificate, which he has submitted at the time of his appointment in the year 1976. From the perusal of the said Certificate, it would reveal that the applicant had studied in the said school during the year 1962 to 1966 and also passed Class 10th Examination, which was sufficient qualification for his appointment on the post of Porter.
3.4 The respondents have also averred that the applicant has been given sufficient opportunity by issuing the show cause notice dated 16.11.2011. To this, the applicant has failed to produce any valid document which would show that his date of birth is 01.01.1952. The competent authority after invoking the provisions contained in para 225 read with sub para 4(1) of the IREC Volume 1 has altered his correct date of birth from 01.01.1952 to 01.01.1946. The respondents also plead that sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the applicant before passing the impugned order. Lastly, the respondents have stated that there is no flaw in passing the order, impugned in the Application, as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence no interference is called for by this Tribunal and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has filed his Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents by refuting the contentions as made in the Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments as already made in the O.A.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following case laws in support of his claim:-
(i) Brij Kishore Vs. State of UP & Others reported in 2016(9) ADJ 357 (LB)
(ii) Shiv Pujan Prashad Vs. State of UP & Others reported in AIR (SC) 2010-0-256.Page 7 of 13
(iii) S. Nagasudaram Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1991) 17 ATC 833.
(iv) Principal St. Joseph Academy Vs. Labour Court Dehradun reported in LAWS(ALL)-1997-4-137.
(v) Sarjoo Prashad Vs. General Manager & another reported in (1981) 3 SCC 544.
(vi) Joginder Pal Khanna Vs. Director General of Police Delhi reported in ATR 1987 (2) CAT 522.
(vii) Hari Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 832.
(viii) Kailash Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR (SCW)-2005-0-3273.
(ix) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Anjana Devi reported in LAWS (SC)-2009-3-163.
(x) State of Tripura Vs. Naresh Chandra Das reported in 2003 Law Suit (SC) 1447
(xi) Gajanan L. Pernekar Vs. State of Goa and another reported in 2000 SCC (L&S) 57.
(xii) Sharfuddin Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal on 06.12.2006 in OA no. 659 of 2006.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the pleadings available on record.
7. The issue involved in this OA is whether the applicant, who secured the appointment on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated certificate/document submitted by him at the time of his initial appointment, is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the OA or not? Admittedly, the applicant was appointed as Porter in the year 1976 at Eastern Railway. At the time of his appointment, the applicant has submitted the Transfer Certificate bearing registration no. 2144 issued by the Principal, Sewa Shram Inter College Suraiwan District Bhadohi, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1952. From the perusal of the said certificate it would reveal that the applicant had studied in the aforesaid institution in the High School Examination during the year 1962 to 1966. To inquire the Page 8 of 13 genuineness of the said certificate, a letter was sent to the Principal of the aforementioned institution who vide his reply dated 30.6.2011 has stated that date of birth of the applicant is 01.01.1946 and the same has been recorded in the relevant register at serial no. 2144. On receipt of the reply from the Principal regarding the alteration in the date of birth of the applicant, the competent authority has issued a show cause notice to the applicant requiring him to submit his version. To this, the applicant has failed to submit any valid document/certificate which would show that the date of birth of the applicant is 01.01.1952 instead of 01.01.1946. It is also noteworthy to state that on verification of the Transfer Certificate, the same was found to be false and fabricated one wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1952. Since the applicant has failed to submit his valid and legal document which would demonstrate his correct date of birth as 01.01.1952 instead of 01.01.1946. Competent authority has given reasonable opportunity to the applicant by issuing a show cause notice requiring him to submit his version, but the applicant has failed to furnish any authenticated document. In absence thereof, the competent authority invoked the provisions contained in Para 225 read with sub para 4(1) of IREC Volume 1 and altered/corrected the date of birth of the applicant in the service record including service book by mentioning his correct date of birth as 01.01.1946 instead of 01.01.1952 and on the basis thereof, the applicant came to be superannuated from service w.e.f 31.12.2005. An opportunity of hearing as required for this purpose has also been provided to the applicant.
8. It is settled proposition of law that if an individual secures appointment by placing/submitting false and fabricated document/certificate, then on detecting the same, the services of an individual can be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. No public servant can be retained in Government Page 9 of 13 service on the basis of false and concocted document/certificate.
9. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent pronouncement dated 18.05.2023 rendered in the case of Kiran Thakur Vs. Resident Commissioner Bihar Bhawan (Writ Petition No. 1668/2014) has held that "employees who are guilty of submitting forged documents to their employer, have to be dealt with in a strict manner." The Hon‟ble High Court has further observed that "If a person submits forged and fabricated documents, then such a person is certainly unfit to be employed. No sympathy or compassion can be shown to such an employee."
10. In the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Sh. Rajendra D Harmalkar, reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 486, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"7.1 In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service."
11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya, (2021 SCC Online SC 739) has held as follows:-
"8.1. In B. Chinnam Naidu [State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 323] , this Court has observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.Page 10 of 13
8.3. It is further observed by this Court in Devendra Kumar [Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 270] that where an applicant employee gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." It is further observed and held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such circumstances, the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf."
12. Submission of the applicant is that he has never submitted any transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Sewa Shram Inter College, Suraiwan District Bhadohi nor studied in the school at any point of time, whereas he has submitted a certificate of Village Pradhan mentioning the date of birth of the applicant as 01.01.1952. If the version of the applicant is taken to be true, then in that case the applicant is an illiterate person then he could not have been appointed/promoted on the post of Commercial Clerk and later-on, on the post of Chief Booking Clerk. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the minimum qualification for the post of Commercial Clerk/ Chief Booking Clerk, at the relevant point of time, was High School. Further, if the applicant was not having the requisite qualification for the post of Commercial Clerk/ Chief Booking Clerk, he could not have been promoted on the said post. As such, it seems that the applicant was possessing the minimum qualification for the post, in question, and that is why, he was promoted to the post of Commercial Clerk/Chief Booking Clerk. The applicant, in order to gain sympathy and also to twist the issue in order to continue in service by treating his date of birth as 01.01.1952, has raised a submission that he had not submitted the transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Sewa Shram Inter College, Suraiwan District Bhadohi, whereas he has submitted the Certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan of the village concerned mentioning therein the date of birth of the applicant as 01.01.1952. In view of this matter also, the applicant has not been able to meet out the submissions made by him. The Page 11 of 13 applicant has attended the school, he appeared in the examination. He is not an illiterate person as he has made signatures in English at all places.
13. We have also carefully considered the case laws as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant in support of his claim. No-doubt, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the rulings in support of his claim wherein the Hon‟ble Court has intervened in the matter relating to alteration of date of birth, but same cannot be applied to the present case. In the present case, an opportunity issuing show cause notice to the applicant has been given. Applicant‟s plea is that he is illiterate person whereas he got promotion to the post which requires minimum qualification. Thus, we are of the view that applicant has not come to the court with clean hands. Modification/alteration in the date of birth has been done in accordance with the provision Para of 225 of Indian Railway Establishment Code. No benefit could be extended to the applicant with the case laws relied upon by him. Letters of respondents also reveal that alteration was made on approval of competent authority. General Manager shall also include Additional General Manager for this purpose. Applicant based his case on the basis of Certificate issued by village Pradhan who is not custodian of register meant for this purpose. Custodian of birth and death register is Panchayat Secretary, who issued Certificate on prescribed proforma after fulfilling of certain formalities and paying the fees.
14. It is noteworthy that trust, which must exist between the employer and employee, has been breached. On one hand, applicant claims himself to be illiterate and on the other hand, he has got promotion of the post of Senior Clerk. Thus, prayers made in the OA are not liable to be allowed. Action of the respondents cannot be termed to be illegal or arbitrary. Applicant continued in the service up to the year 2011 on the basis of forged and false document.
Page 12 of 1315. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the OA lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
16. All the associated MAs stand disposed of.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member-A Member-J
Girish/-
Page 13 of 13