Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neetu Kumari vs Ministry Of Ayush on 25 November, 2025
1
O.A. No. 207/2022
with
O.A. No. 208/2022
O.A. No. 559/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.207/2022
with
O.A. No. 208/2022
O.A. No. 559/2022
Reserved on: 07.10.2025
Pronounced on : 25.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
OA No. 207/2022
Ms. Meenakshi Tomar
W/o Mr. Vinay Kumar
R/o H. No. 118/32, Amar Enclave East Model Town
GT Road, Ghaziabad, UP-201009.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)
Versus
1. Union of India, Secretary Ayush,
Through Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga
and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, AYUSH
Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex,
INA, New Delhi-110023.
2. Central Council for Research in Ayurveda Sciences
Through its Director General,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam
Homoeopathy Ansusandhan Bhawan,
61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. The Director (Institute)
Ayurveda Central Research Institute
Road No.66, Punjabi Bagh (W), New Delhi-110026.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.N. Verma)
2
O.A. No. 207/2022
with
O.A. No. 208/2022
O.A. No. 559/2022
O.A. No. 208/2022
Ms. Neetu Kumari
W/o Mr. Prashant Kumar Jha
R/o H. No. A-47, Jwaia Puri, Camp No. 4, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi -
110087.
(By Advocates: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)
Versus
1. Union of India
Secretary, Ayush
Through Ministry of Ayush, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha
and Homoeopathy, AYUSH Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023.
2. Central Council for Research in-Ayurveda Sciences Through its
Director Generai, Jawahar Lai Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam
Homoeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan, 61-65, Institutional Area, 0pp. D
Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. The Director (Institute) Ayurveda Central Research Institute Road No.
66, Punjabi Bagh (W) New Delhi - 110026.
(By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma)
OA No.559/2022
D. Kumudha Valli
W/o Mr. Selva Kumar A
R/o H.No. 259-A/A-1, Maa Shakti Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi-110 063.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)
Versus
1. Union of India
Secretary, Ayush
Through Ministry of Ayush, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha
and Homoeopathy, AYUSH Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023.
2. Central Council for Research in-Ayurveda Sciences Through its
Director General, Jawahar Lai Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam
Homoeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan, 61-65, Institutional Area, 0pp. D
Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.
3. The Director (Institute) Ayurveda Central Research Institute Road No.
66, Punjabi Bagh (W) New Delhi - 110026.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Annu Singh)
3
O.A. No. 207/2022
with
O.A. No. 208/2022
O.A. No. 559/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):
The three OAs herein under are emanating from a common cause of action and, therefore, they are being treated in one judgment as hereunder.
2. By way of these OAs filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-
"OA No. 207/2022
(a) Quash the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the respondents removing the Applicantfrom the service and the order dated NIL December, 2019, rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant.
(b) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicantin the post of Laboratory Technician with effect from the date from which she was removed from service with full consequential benefits, with immediate effect;
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant." OA No. 208/2022
"(a) Quash the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the respondents removing the Applicantfrom the service and the appellate order dated NIL November, 2019, rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant.
(b) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicantin the post of Laboratory Technician with effect from the date from which she was removed from service with full consequential benefits, with immediate effect;4 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant." OA No. 559/2022
"(a) Quash the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the respondents removing the Applicantfrom the service and the order dated NIL November, 2019.
(b) Quash the Order dated Nil/November, 2019 of the Respondents rejecting the Appeal of the Applicantagainst the order dated 11.03.2019 of the Appellate Authority wherein the Respondent no .2 imposed a major penalty on the Applicantby arbitrarily removing the Applicantfrom the service on frivolous charges.
(c) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicantin the post of Staff Nurse with effect from the date from which she was removed from service with full consequential benefits, with immediate effect;
(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant." OA No. 207/2022
The facts in a nutshell:
2. In response to Advertisement No. 4/2012, published in the Employment News dated 06.04.2012-13.04.2012, applications were invited for various posts, including two posts of Staff Nurses and four posts of Laboratory Technicians. The Applicant submitted her application for the post of 'Laboratory Technician' under the OBC category. During the verification 5 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 process, however, it came to light that the OBC certificate submitted by the Applicant was invalid.
3. Subsequently, a complaint was received by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide letter dated 02.08.2013, alleging irregularities in the recruitment process conducted in 2012 while Dr. M. M. Rao was functioning as Director (Institute), ACRI, New Delhi. This complaint was forwarded by the then Department of AYUSH through letters dated 17.02.2014 and 23.04.2014. Pursuant to the directions of the CVC, a detailed vigilance inquiry was undertaken. One of the key allegations examined in the inquiry pertained specifically to irregularities in the recruitment of 'Staff Nurses' and 'Laboratory Technicians', including the appointment of the present applicant.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the Applicanthad been selected and appointed as a 'Laboratory Technician' during the same recruitment drive. After examining the findings of the vigilance inquiry, the CVC, through its First Stage Advice, recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. M. M. Rao for his role in the irregularities. The CVC further advised that major penalty proceedings be initiated against the Applicant and other individuals involved. Acting upon this 6 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 advice, and after obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority, a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was issued to the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 28.12.2016.
5. Upon denial of the charges by the applicant, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct a regular departmental inquiry. After examining the evidence and submissions, the Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 28.11.2017, found the charge against the Applicant to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and consequently imposed the major penalty of removal from service, which shall not, however, be a disqualification for future employment under the Government, vide order dated 11.03.2019.
6. The inquiry further revealed that the Applicant was in connivance with the then Director (Institute) from the initial stage of recruitment up to her appointment under the OBC category. This was despite the explicit stipulation under Clause-8 of the advertisement that late or incomplete applications, or those lacking attested copies of academic qualifications, proof of age, or community certificates, would be summarily rejected. Contrary to these mandatory 7 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 conditions, the applicant's incomplete application was improperly entertained and processed by the Director (Institute), thereby facilitating her irregular appointment.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:
7. The Applicant respectfully submits the following facts leading to the filing of the present Original Application:-
(i) Vide Advertisement No. 4/2012 dated 06.04.2012, the Respondents invited applications for various posts, including the post of 'Laboratory Technician'.
As per the terms of the advertisement, applications were required to be submitted within 30 days. The last date for submission, i.e., 06.05.2012, fell on a Sunday and therefore, in accordance with the standard administrative practice, the next working day, i.e., 07.05.2012, was treated as the effective last date for receipt of applications. This position was also clarified by ACRI, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, which issued an office note mentioning that applications would be accepted till 4:00 PM on 07.05.2012.
8O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
(ii) The Applicant, being eligible and belonging to the OBC category, submitted her application on 22.05.2012.
(iii) On 09.06.2012, Respondent No. 3 issued a Memorandum provisionally permitting the Applicant to appear for the written examination and interview for the post of 'Laboratory Technician' on 08.07.2012. The said permission was subject to verification of her original certificates relating to date of birth, educational and technical qualifications, experience, caste category, etc. The Applicantappeared for verification as directed, and all her documents were duly scrutinized and verified by the respondents.
(iv) Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.07.2012, the Applicant was informed that she had been selected for the post of 'Laboratory Technician' and was directed to report for medical examination. Consequent thereto, the Applicant was appointed as 'Laboratory Technician' with respondent No. 3 on 30.07.2012. Subsequently, by office order dated 9 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 08.08.2012, respondent No. 3 placed the Applicant on probation for a period of two years.
(v) The Applicant discharged her duties diligently and without complaint. However, after a lapse of more than four years, respondent No. 2, vide Memorandum dated 28.12.2016, proposed to initiate a departmental inquiry against her. The Applicant submitted her reply on 12.01.2017 denying the allegations and furnishing all clarifications as required.
(vi) On 02.03.2017, respondent no. 2 appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Applicant along with others. It is submitted that the said appointment order was not in conformity with the mandatory requirements prescribed under Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As a result, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were never delegated the requisite powers to conduct the inquiry or to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. This fundamental procedural 10 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 illegality vitiated the entire inquiry proceedings from their inception.
(vii) Subsequent to conclusion of the inquiry, the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief on 12.10.2017 and the Applicant submitted her written defense brief on 27.10.2017. The Inquiry Authority thereafter submitted its report dated 28.11.2017. The Applicant submitted her representation against the findings of the inquiry report on 26.01.2018.
(viii) Despite the serious procedural defects in the conduct of the inquiry, Respondent No. 2, vide order of "removal from services which shall not be a disqualification for further employment under the Government" dated 11.03.2019, imposed a major penalty upon the applicant. The Applicant thereafter preferred a statutory appeal on 17.04.2019 in accordance with the applicable service rules. When the appeal remained unaddressed, the Applicant was constrained to file a review petition on 03.02.2020 before Respondent No. 1, who is the President of the Governing Body of Respondent No. 11 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 2/CCRAS. However, the review petition remains pending without any decision till date.
8. In view of the facts stated above, and in the absence of any decision on the Applicant's review petition, the Applicant has been compelled to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:
9. The Respondents submit that the Applicant obtained employment on the basis of an invalid OBC certificate. As per DOP&T O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 15.11.1993 and O.M. No. 36033/4/97-Estt.(Res.) dated 25.07.2003, an OBC certificate for appointment in the Central Government must strictly conform to the prescribed proforma. The certificate produced by the Applicant was issued by a Tehsildar under the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 24.07.2009, and failed to clearly specify her non-creamy layer status. It merely contained an ambiguous remark stating that she was "not covered under some Rules of 2002 of U.P. Government." The certificate was based on parental income for the preceding three years. The Applicant's father was working as a Technical Officer in the Neuro Surgery Department at AIIMS, New Delhi, and his income for the relevant period was 12 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 required to be considered. The Applicant herself admitted ignorance about her father's income. Nonetheless, the invalid certificate issued in 2009, based on income for 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, was used in the 2012 recruitment without any undertaking regarding her non-creamy layer status. The authenticity of her OBC certificate and experience certificates was not verified during probation as well.
10. The Respondents further submit that multiple recruitment rules and procedures were violated in the appointment of the Applicant. Pursuant to the advertisement published in the Employment News from 06.04.2012 to 13.04.2012 for two posts of Staff Nurse and four posts of Laboratory Technician, the Applicant's name appeared in the list forwarded by the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantt. However, she did not submit any formal application in the prescribed format. Instead, she submitted only her curriculum vitae along with photocopies of her qualifications and experience certificates, and that too on 22.05.2012--the date being well beyond the last date for receiving applications. Clause-8 of the advertisement mandated summary rejection of late, incomplete, or unauthenticated applications. Contrary to these mandatory 13 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 conditions, the then Director (Institute), Dr. M. M. Rao, entertained the Applicant's documents and facilitated her appointment. For these irregularities, Dr. Rao was issued a charge sheet for major penalty proceedings, and upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, he was awarded a major penalty.
11. The Respondents further submit that an offer of appointment was issued to the Applicant vide letter dated 26.07.2012, directing her to undergo medical examination by a civil surgeon at a Government Hospital in her city or district. Although the Applicant received the letter on 27.07.2012, she underwent medical examination the very next day at MMG District Hospital, Ghaziabad. On 30.07.2012, she submitted her attestation form and medical fitness certificate and, on the same day, received her appointment letter by hand and submitted her joining report. Such an accelerated process further indicates procedural irregularities in her recruitment.
12. The Respondents submit that under Bye-Law 46 of the Memorandum of Association, appeals against penalties imposed under CCS (Conduct) and CCS (CCA) Rules lie before the authority specified in the annexure, whose decision is final. For the Applicant, the prescribed Appellate Authority 14 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 was the Vice-President of the Governing Body. However, she submitted her appeal to the President of the Governing Body, i.e., the Minister of State (Independent Charge), who had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the appeal. Despite this, the Applicant now claims that the President allowed her appeal and quashed the order dated 11.03.2019. The alleged order dated 13.05.2019 does not bear any endorsement or markings and was not communicated to the Applicant or the Respondents through proper official channels. These circumstances cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged document which appears manipulated or fabricated.
13. Even the Applicant's own conduct belies the existence of the purported order. She filed a Review Petition before the Minister of State (IC), yet made no reference to the alleged order dated 13.05.2019. This clearly indicates that she was aware that the said document was false and fabricated. The Applicant has also relied upon documents that she was not authorized to possess, and reliance on such unauthenticated or illegally procured documents is untenable.
14. The present Application, therefore, rests upon concealment of material facts and misrepresentation. The Applicant participated fully in the departmental inquiry, was 15 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 afforded ample opportunity to defend herself, and did not raise any objections to the inquiry proceedings at any stage. Her statements are contradictory and cast doubt on the genuineness of the documents relied upon by her. She has also failed to exhaust her statutory remedies, as the Review Petition filed by her is still pending before the President, Governing Body.
15. In light of the above submissions, the Respondents contend that the Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
OA No. 208/2022 The facts in a nutshell:-
16. In response to the advertisement published in the Employment News dated 06.04.2012-13.04.2012 inviting applications for the posts of Staff Nurse (02) and Laboratory Technician (04), the Applicant submitted her application for the post of Laboratory Technician. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post were as under:
(i) Degree in Science or B. Pharma from a recognized University with one year's experience in Laboratory Technology in a laboratory of a recognized Hospital/Institution;
OR
(ii) Intermediate Science from a recognized University 16 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 with Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology of minimum one year duration from a recognized Hospital/Institution and two years' experience in a laboratory of a recognized Hospital/Institution; OR
(iii) Matric or equivalent with five years' experience in Laboratory Technology in a laboratory of a recognized Hospital/Institution.
17. The Applicant was considered eligible under the third category, i.e., Matric or equivalent with five years' experience in Laboratory Technology. However, it was subsequently found that the Applicant had submitted a fake experience certificate and had secured appointment on the strength of such fabricated document.
18. A complaint was received from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide letter dated 02.08.2013, which was forwarded by the then Department of AYUSH vide letters dated 17.02.2014 and 23.04.2014, alleging various irregularities against Dr. M.M. Rao, Director (Institute), ACRI, New Delhi. Pursuant to the directions of the CVC, a detailed vigilance enquiry was conducted into the allegations, one of which pertained to irregularities in the recruitment held in 2012 for the posts of 02 Staff Nurses and 04 Laboratory Technicians, during the tenure of Dr. M.M. Rao as Director (Institute). It is pertinent to state that the Applicant was also appointed in the same recruitment process.
17O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
19. After obtaining the First Stage Advice of the CVC recommending initiation of major penalty proceedings against Dr. M.M. Rao, the applicant, and others, and with the approval of the Competent Authority, a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 28.12.2016 for major penalty proceedings.
20. Upon denial of the charges, an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 27.11.2017 holding the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the major penalty of "removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government", vide order dated 11.03.2019.
21. It is further submitted that the Applicant acted in connivance with the then Director (Institute) right from the stage of recruitment till her joining as Laboratory Technician. The recruitment rules and procedures were flouted at every stage to facilitate her appointment. Dr. M.M. Rao has also 18 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 been issued a charge sheet for major penalty proceedings, and upon conclusion of the enquiry, a major penalty has been imposed on him as well.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:-
22. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was appointed as a Laboratory Technician after undergoing a duly conducted and transparent selection process initiated by the respondents. Vide Advertisement No. 4/2012 issued between 06.04.2012 and 13.04.2012, applications were invited for various posts, including that of Laboratory Technician. The Applicant submitted her application on 02.05.2012, and subsequently, Respondent No. 3, vide Memorandum dated 09.07.2012, provisionally permitted her to appear in the written examination and interview scheduled on 14.07.2012. It is submitted that the Applicant produced all original documents during certificate verification and the same were duly scrutinized and found in order by the competent authority.
23. Pursuant to the written test and interview, the Respondents were fully satisfied with the recruitment process, as is evident from the communication dated 24.07.2012 19 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 issued by the office of Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 26.07.2012, informed the Applicant that she was selected for the post of Laboratory Technician and directed her to undergo medical examination. The Applicant was accordingly appointed on 31.07.2012 and had been discharging her duties diligently and without any blemish.
24. However, after a lapse of more than four years, Respondent No. 2 suddenly proposed to initiate a departmental enquiry against the Applicant vide communication dated 28.12.2016. The learned counsel submits that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated from inception. Respondent No. 2 appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer on 02.03.2017. The Presenting Officer, without any proper authorization or delegation from the Disciplinary Authority, submitted a written brief before the Inquiry Officer on 12.10.2017. The said PO brief, being unauthorized, could not have been relied upon or acted upon in law.
25. The Applicant duly submitted her written defence brief on 27.10.2017, explaining that the charges were baseless and unsupported by evidence. Despite this, the Inquiry Officer, in 20 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 his report dated 27.11.2017, erroneously held the charges to be proved. It is submitted that the report suffers from non- application of mind, as the Inquiry Officer completely ignored the documentary evidence and written submissions of the applicant.
26. The Applicant filed her reply to the inquiry report on 25.01.2018, specifically pointing out that the evidence adduced during the enquiry did not substantiate the charges levelled against her. Nevertheless, Respondent No. 2 mechanically accepted the flawed and unauthorized inquiry report and imposed a major penalty on 11.03.2019.
27. Aggrieved, the Applicant preferred an appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, on 22.03.2019, followed by another appeal to the President, Governing Body of CCRAS, on 24.04.2019. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1, vide a reasoned order dated 13.05.2019, quashed the penalty/termination order dated 11.03.2019. However, despite the penalty having been set aside, the respondents failed to implement the said order and continued to keep the Applicant under an adverse position. The Applicant was compelled to file a review petition before Respondent No. 1 on 03.02.2020, which remains pending till date.
21O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
28. Learned counsel submits that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice. The enquiry itself was conducted in a manner contrary to law, and the penalty order having already been quashed, the continued inaction of the respondents amounts to willful disobedience, causing grave prejudice and hardship to the applicant. It is in these circumstances that the Applicant has been constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal by way of the present petition seeking appropriate reliefs.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents
29. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that the respondents deny all statements, contentions and allegations made in the Original Application, except those specifically admitted in the reply, and nothing should be construed as an admission merely because it has not been specifically traversed.
30. It is submitted that the Applicant had applied for the post of Laboratory Technician pursuant to the advertisement published in the Employment News dated 06.04.2012- 13.04.2012. The essential qualification for the said post required either a degree in Science/B. Pharma with one year's 22 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 laboratory experience, or Intermediate Science with a Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology and two years' experience, or, in the alternative, Matric or equivalent with five years' experience in Laboratory Technology in a recognized hospital or institution. The Applicant had claimed eligibility under the third category by producing experience certificates purportedly issued by three different hospitals.
31. During a detailed vigilance inquiry initiated on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the CVC, the genuineness of the applicant's experience certificates was verified by sending letters to the concerned hospitals. Two of the hospitals categorically denied having issued any such certificate to the applicant. The third hospital also later informed that no certificate had been issued in her name. Thus, it clearly emerged that the Applicant had secured her appointment by furnishing false and fabricated experience certificates.
32. Learned counsel further submits that the DoPT O.M. dated 19.05.1993 lays down an unequivocal position that where a Government servant is found to have furnished false information or produced a false certificate for securing appointment, such person cannot be retained in service. If the employee is a probationer or temporary Government servant, 23 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 as in the present case, termination from service is mandatory; and if the employee is permanent, proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 must be initiated, culminating only in removal or dismissal--no lesser penalty is permissible. The appointment letter dated 31.07.2012 also expressly warns that furnishing false information shall render the candidate liable to removal from service.
33. It is further submitted that the vigilance inquiry also revealed a deeper connivance between the Applicant and Dr. M.M. Rao, the then Director (Institute). The suspiciously expedited manner in which the Applicant completed her medical examination, submitted attestation and fitness certificates, received the memorandum of appointment, and joined duties--all on the forenoon of 31.07.2012--is practically impossible under normal administrative circumstances. This sequence of events strongly indicates undue favour and manipulation. The applicant's husband, who was working as a Data Entry Operator (outsourced basis) under Dr. Rao and was involved in recruitment activities, further reinforces the existence of collusion. Notably, Dr. M.M. Rao himself has been proceeded against and awarded a major penalty for irregularities in the same recruitment cycle. 24 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
34. Learned counsel submits that a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was served upon the applicant, and a regular departmental inquiry was conducted wherein she was provided ample opportunities to defend herself. The Inquiry Officer, after considering all evidence, held the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority, upon due consideration, imposed the major penalty of removal from service, which is fully consistent with the DoPT instructions governing cases of fraudulent entry into service.
35. With respect to the applicant's claim that the President, Governing Body (MoS-IC) had allegedly quashed the penalty order, it is submitted that such a contention is wholly untenable. Under Bye-Law 46 of the Memorandum of Association, the Appellate Authority for the Applicantis the Vice-President, Governing Body--not the President. The alleged appellate order dated 13.05.2019 is neither marked to any authority nor endorsed even to the applicant, rendering its authenticity doubtful. The document appears to be fabricated or manipulated and cannot be relied upon.
36. Learned counsel also points out that the Applicanthas placed on record certain documents which are not supposed to be in her possession and whose procurement is unexplained. 25 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 Reliance on such unauthorized documents is impermissible and further taints her conduct.
37. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the present Original Application is wholly devoid of merit, suffers from concealment of material facts, and is based on misrepresentation. The Applicantduly participated in the inquiry and never objected to the proceedings at any stage. The penalty imposed is lawful, justified, and in consonance with established rules governing fraudulent entry into service. The OA, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. OA No. 559/2022 Facts in a nutshell:-
38. A complaint was received from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide letter dated 02.08.2013, which was forwarded by the Ministry of AYUSH. Acting upon this, the then Director (Institute), Dr. M.M. Rao, conducted a detailed vigilance inquiry into allegations of irregularities in recruitment of 02 Staff Nurses and 04 Laboratory Technicians at CARICD, New Delhi.
39. During the same recruitment drive, the applicant, Smt. D. Kumudha Valli, was appointed as Staff Nurse against an 26 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 SC-reserved post. The preliminary vigilance inquiry revealed that her application was accepted despite being incomplete and submitted by hand, contrary to clause 8 of the advertisement, which mandated rejection of late or incomplete applications or those lacking attested educational, age, and community certificates.
40. It was further found that the Applicant had submitted a fake experience certificate, which was an essential eligibility condition. One Billroth Hospitals Ltd., Chennai confirmed that the signature on the certificate purportedly issued by them was forged. Other hospitals either did not respond or did not confirm issuance of the certificates. It was also noted that the Applicant obtained her medical fitness certificate from a private hospital in New Delhi rather than from a Government Civil Surgeon in her home district, as required.
41. Based on CVC's First-Stage Advice, major penalty proceedings were initiated against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. An Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. After conducting a full- fledged departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held the charge of submitting fake experience certificates as proved. 27 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
42. Accepting the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of "removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government," vide order dated 11.03.2019.
43. The Applicant preferred an appeal; however, the competent Appellate Authority, Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH rejected the appeal vide order dated 02.12.2019. The applicant's reliance on an alleged contrary order purportedly passed by the President, Governing Body, was found to be unauthenticated and beyond jurisdiction.
44. Aggrieved by the penalty and the appellate orders, the Applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:-
45. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was duly appointed as 'Staff Nurse' pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2012 after undergoing a comprehensive selection process which included verification of all her original certificates by Respondent No. 3. The Respondents themselves had expressed satisfaction with the recruitment process vide communication dated 24.07.2012, and the Applicant was 28 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 accordingly appointed on 31.07.2012 and placed on probation vide office order dated 13.08.2012. Having served the organisation for nearly five years without any blemish, the sudden initiation of departmental proceedings on 28.12.2017 on allegations relating to alleged falsification of experience certificates is wholly unfounded and unjustified.
46. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 had verified all the documents, including the experience certificates, at the time of the applicant's appearance for the written test and interview. The appointment was made only after due verification. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority's later presumption that the experience certificates submitted by the Applicant were false is perverse and contrary to the verification already conducted by the Respondents themselves.
47. Learned counsel submits that during the inquiry proceedings, grave procedural irregularities were committed. The Presenting Officer submitted an unauthorized written brief on 12.10.2017 without notice or opportunity to the applicant. Although the Applicant filed her detailed written defence brief on 27.10.2017, the Inquiry Officer, while submitting his report dated 27.11.2017, completely ignored the submissions and supporting documents placed on record by the applicant. The 29 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 Inquiry Report, therefore, stands vitiated for non-consideration of material evidence and for being a product of bias and pre-determined mindset.
48. It is further argued that despite the applicant's objections to the findings of the inquiry report vide her representation dated 25.01.2018, the Disciplinary Authority, without independent application of mind, accepted the defective report and imposed a major penalty on 11.03.2019. The said penalty order is thus liable to be set aside as it is based on an inquiry that is unauthorized, invalid, and contrary to law.
49. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that thereafter, the Applicant preferred a statutory appeal dated 22.03.2019 before the Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, which remained unaddressed. Further, the Applicant approached all her former employers requesting issuance of experience certificates for the periods she had served under them. All the former employers duly issued certificates confirming the authenticity of the work experience claimed by the Applicant from the very beginning. These genuine certificates conclusively establish that the adverse findings of the Disciplinary Authority are factually incorrect and based on erroneous assumptions. This clearly demonstrates that the 30 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 respondents erred in holding that the Applicant had submitted false experience documents.
50. It is submitted that the Applicant thereafter preferred an appeal dated 23.04.2019 before the President, Governing Body of CCRAS, Ministry of Ayush, who was pleased to quash the termination order dated 11.03.2019 vide order dated 13.05.2019. Despite this clear order, the Respondents failed to implement the same and continued to keep the Applicant out of service in complete disregard of the lawful direction of the Appellate Authority. Such non-compliance is arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
51. Learned counsel argues that the Applicant subsequently filed a Review Petition on 03.02.2020 before the President of the Governing Body, which has remained pending without adjudication. Left with no other remedy owing to the inaction of the Respondents, the Applicant approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 204/2022 seeking quashing of the penalty order and reinstatement. Although the OA was dismissed on 08.02.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition, the fundamental illegality in the disciplinary proceedings 31 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 continues to persist, necessitating the filing of the present Original Application.
52. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings, including the inquiry report and the penalty order dated 11.03.2019, are liable to be quashed for being arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, in violation of natural justice, and contrary to statutory rules. The applicant, having been unlawfully removed despite a clear direction of the Appellate Authority, is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents:
53. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that a complaint was received from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide letter dated 02.08.2013, which was forwarded by the Ministry of AYUSH for necessary action. Acting upon the said complaint, the then Director (Institute), Dr. M.M. Rao, conducted a detailed vigilance inquiry into serious allegations of irregularities in the recruitment of two Staff Nurses and four Laboratory Technicians at CARICD, New Delhi. 32 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
54. It is submitted that during the same recruitment process, the applicant, Smt. D. Kumudha Valli, was appointed as Staff Nurse against an SC-reserved post. The preliminary vigilance inquiry categorically revealed that the applicant's application was accepted despite being incomplete and submitted by hand, in clear violation of Clause 8 of the advertisement, which mandated rejection of incomplete applications or applications lacking attested educational, age, and community certificates.
55. Learned counsel further submits that the vigilance inquiry established that the Applicant had furnished a fake experience certificate, which was an essential eligibility criterion for the post. One Billroth Hospitals Ltd., Chennai specifically confirmed that the signature appearing on the certificate allegedly issued by them was forged. Other hospitals either did not respond or did not confirm issuance of any certificate in favour of the applicant. It also came to light that the Applicant obtained her medical fitness certificate from a private hospital in New Delhi, contrary to the requirement of obtaining it from a Government Civil Surgeon in her home district.
33O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
56. It is submitted that based on the CVC's First Stage Advice, major penalty proceedings were rightly initiated against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. An Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, and after conducting a full-fledged departmental inquiry in which the Applicant was afforded due opportunity, the Inquiry Officer held the charge of submitting fake experience certificates as fully proved.
57. Learned counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration of the inquiry report, imposed the major penalty of "removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government," vide order dated 11.03.2019.
58. It is further submitted that the applicant's statutory appeal was considered by the competent Appellate Authority, namely the Secretary, Ministry of AYUSH, who, after examining all relevant material, rejected the appeal vide speaking order dated 02.12.2019. The alleged contrary order relied upon by the applicant, purportedly issued by the President, Governing Body, is wholly unauthenticated, without jurisdiction, and not traceable in any official records.
34O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
59. Thus, learned counsel submits that the present Original Application, filed to challenge a legally valid penalty order and a reasoned appellate order, is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Conclusion:
60. We have carefully gone through the pleadings available on record with the assistance provided by learned counsels for both the parties.
61. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicants never even mentioned once that they had filed a Review Petition before the competent authority, who is the President of the Governing Body of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) and Minister of State (Independent-charge) for AYUSH.
62. Similarly, the learned counsel for the respondents had also not brought this aspect before us during hearing that vide Bye-Law 46 of the Memorandum of Association, appeals against penalties imposed under CCS (Conduct) and CCS (CCA) Rules can be filed before the prescribed appellate authority, the Vice President of the Governing Body/Secretary (AYUSH) and if the Applicant is still aggrieved by the order of such appellate authority, there is 35 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 a provision for revision in the By-Laws to the President of the Governing Body i.e. the Minister of State (Independent- charge) for AYUSH.
63. It is intriguing from the records presented before us to observe that all the three applicants herein had submitted a petition before the President of the Governing Body on 17.04.2019 and the President had allowed their appeal by issuing an order dated 13.05.2019 which has quashed the order of the disciplinary authority dated 11.03.2019. The respondents themselves are stating that the alleged order dated 13.05.2019 does not bear any endorsement or markings and was not communicated to the Applicant or the respondents through proper official channels. They state that 'these circumstances cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged document, which appears manipulated or fabricated. They also state that "even the Applicant's own conduct belies the existence of the purported order. She filed a Review Petition before the Minister of State (IC), yet made no reference to the alleged order dated 13.05.2019. This clearly indicates that she was aware that the said document was false and fabricated". 36 O.A. No. 207/2022
with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022
64. This is a matter which is quite intriguing but in any case in as much as, the respondents themselves state that the Applicant therein has filed a revision petition before the revisionary authority/President of the Governing Body, vide Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. the time limit of six months is granted to the respondents to dispose of the representation presented by the applicant. For better clarity, Section 21 of the same reads as under:-
"21. Limitation -
(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application, -
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where -
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date 37 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause
(a), or , as the case may be, clause (b), of sub- section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section(2), if the Applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period Normally, we would have gone into the merits of the case after detail hearing, however, while drafting the judgment, we found that the Applicant had enclosed a purported order issued by the Minister of State/President for the Governing Body of the CCRAS absolving her of all the charges.
However, the respondents in their reply have stated that such order purported to have been issued by the Minister/President Governing Body itself could be a fabricated and the manipulated order, which is making this case very intriguing. They also submit in their reply that a revision petition is still pending consideration of the Minister."
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of all these three OAs with directions to the revisionary authority to pass a well reasoned and 38 O.A. No. 207/2022 with O.A. No. 208/2022 O.A. No. 559/2022 speaking order upon the applicants' pending representations as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months of receipt of their pending review petitions or six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whichever is later, in accordance with law. If the respondents find that there is no such order that has been passed by the Minister of State (Independent- charge)/President Governing Body as claimed by the applicant, liberty is given to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
65. The OAs are accordingly dispose of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
A copy of this order be kept in each file of the OAs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /anjali/