Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Lallan Prasad S/O Manna Prasad Posted As ... vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2014
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 571 of 2010
Allahabad this the 24th day of April, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J
Honble Ms. B. Bhamathi, Member-A
Lallan Prasad s/o Manna Prasad Posted as Turner in Ordnance Factory in Kanpur, R/o Quarter No. G-2/131, Armapur Estate, Kanpur.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Sajnu Ram
Vs.
1. Union of India, through Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Additional D.G.O.F./Member Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata.
3. Senior General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur.
4. Joint General Manager (Q.C.) Ordnance Factory, Kanpur
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Saurabh
(Reserved on 26th February, 2014)
O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s): -
i) Quash the removal order No. 02/viz/IEE/Ordnance Factory/Kanpur dated 29.12.2006 and appellate order no. 16867/A/DISC dated 8/9.2.2010 passed by ADDL. DGOF/Member Ordnance Factor Board, Kolkata with all consequential benefit of pay, allowance, seniority and promotion in continuation of his earlier services to the date of reinstatement;
ii) Quash the Enquiry Report No. 01/JGMQC/01/Viz/IEE dated 12.11.2006.
iii) To get the caste certificate no. 2818/3.4.95 of the applicant verified through State Level Scrutiny Committee as per direction of Honble Supreme Court.
iv) Grant any other and further relief which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v) Grant cost of litigation in favour of the applicant against the respondents.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this O.A. are as follows: -
That the applicant was working as Turner in Ordnance Factory, Kanpur. He was removed from service on 29.12.2006 due to false allegation that he has produced forged caste certificate for getting the appointment. Before filing this O.A., the applicant has filed O.A. No. 100 of 2007 Lallan Prasad Vs. Union of India and others in this Tribunal against the removal order dated 29.12.2006 which was disposed of by this Tribunal directing the applicant to file a comprehensive appeal before the Appellate Authority. The applicant preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 08.02.2010.
3. Feeling aggrieved, present O.A. has been filed by the applicant mainly on the ground that the applicant belongs to the caste under Schedule Tribe and he was appointed as Turner after completion of necessary training and his appointment was subject to verification of caste certificate. At the time of appointment, caste certificate was duly verified by the departmental officials and the applicant was appointed against S.T. quota. The applicant belongs to the caste of Gond which is a tribal caste and has been included in the list of S.T. The respondents on the basis of an inquiry report from the Tehsildar, Padrauna and Prabhari Adhikari, Collectorate, Kushinagar came to the conclusion that no caste certificate of S.T. was issued in favour of the applicant by the aforesaid authorities. The applicant was placed under suspension, inquiry was held and the applicant was removed from service, as stated above. The main ground of challenge of removal order, alleged in the O.A. by the applicant, is that the applicant has been removed illegally, unconstitutionally and arbitrarily only on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted behind the back of applicant. The caste certificate of applicant was genuine, legal and valid and the respondents have illegally disbelieved it without getting it verified by the State level Scrutiny Committee as per the directions of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil. The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is not reasoned and speaking order and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. The respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made by the applicant stating that the applicant was initially selected for trade apprenticeship training under the S.T. quota in the year 1990 in Ordnance Factory, Kanpur and he was imparted training for a period of three years w.e.f. 13.06.1990 to 12.06.1993 and subsequently he was appointed in Ordnance Factory, Kanpur as Turner (semi-skilled) w.e.f. 19.01.2002 in the pay scale of `2650-4000/-. The fraudulent cases of taking benefit of reservation by producing false ST certificate was under consideration of the Honble High Court, Delhi in Writ Petition No. 5976/2003 (Chandreshwar Prasad vs. Union of India. The Honble Delhi High Court vide Order dated 14.07.2004 passed in the said Writ Petition directed the C.B.I. to verify details of all those persons who had obtained Government employment under S.T. category since 1995. On preliminary inquiry by the C.B.I., it was revealed that more than 30% of the S.T. certificates produced by the candidates were either forged or false. Thereafter, the Government of India issued instructions to all the Ministries/Departments to implement the directions of the Honble High Court, Delhi to scrutinize/verify the authenticity of caste certificate submitted by S.T. candidates for appointment in Government jobs. The Chairman/DGOF, OFB, Kolkata issued DO No. 067/A/VIG (STC)/2005 dated 24.06.2005 and according to this letter verification of candidates appointed since 1995 was to be carried out and in this regard a letter was sent to the District Magistrate, Kushinagar to verify the authenticity of certificate, submitted by the applicant, in reply of which the Prabhari Adhikari, Kushinagar vide letter No. 678/P. Patra 2005 dated 07.10.2005 informed that the caste certificate No. 2818 dated 03.04.1995 issued to the applicant was for the S.C. and not for the S.T. On detailed examination, it was found that in order to get appointment and promotions during the service tenure under the S.T. quota, the applicant caused to cut the word S.C. and ticked the word S.T. in the caste certificate. After receipt of the aforesaid information from civil authorities, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.11.2005 and a charge sheet dated 04.01.2006 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 was issued to the applicant. On denial of charge by the applicant, a Court of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against him. The Inquiry Officer held the applicant guilty of the charges as levelled against him after giving proper opportunity to applicant for making representation and after considering his representation dated 01.12.2006, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on the applicant vide order dated 29.12.2006. The applicant preferred an Appeal but the Appeal was also rejected.
5. The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste (Gond) of District Kushinagar, U.P. which is not included in the list of S.T. In the year 2003, as per instruction No. 111-Bha.Sa/26.3.2003 (3)7/2003 dated 03.07.2003 issued from Uttar Pradesh Government, sub caste Gond was included in the list of S.T. in particular districts but district Kushinagar is not included in the list. Hence, the sub caste Gond in district Kushinagar is listed as S.C. and not S.T.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant cannot get any benefit of the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Km. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others 1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 241 as the facts and circumstances of that case are different. In that case, status of Hindu Koli was not confirmed and as such the case was referred to Scrutiny Committee for confirmation about the caste status of Hindu Koli. In the case of present applicant, there is no such dispute. It is clear from the record that the sub caste Gond in district Kushinagar is S.C. and not S.T. The applicant has got no case and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
7. The applicant has also filed Rejoinder Affidavit reiterating the earlier stands taken in the O.A. and re-emphasizing that the dispute of caste certificate of the applicant should have been sent for verification to the State Level Screening Committee. The respondents have illegally removed the applicant from service hence, the O.A. deserves to be allowed.
8. The applicant has placed reliance on documentary evidence which is annexure A-1 to annexure A-15 on record.
9. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on documentary evidence, filed by them, which is annexure CA-1 to annexure CA-2 on record.
10. It is an admitted fact by the parties that the applicant was selected for training of apprenticeship under S.T. quota in the year 1990. Subsequently, he was appointed in Ordnance Factory, Kanpur as Turner (semi-skilled) w.e.f. 19.01.2002. The caste certificate, on the basis of which the applicant has got service, has been filed by him on record as annexure A-10 which also shows him as S.T. candidate. It is also an admitted fact that subsequently the respondents verified the authenticity of caste certificate produced by the applicant from the Issuing Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Kushinagar, Prabhari Adhikar, Kushinagar and Tehsildar, Kushinagar and a specific report was submitted to the respondents that no such caste certificate has ever been issued showing the applicant as S.T. The applicant himself has admitted during the inquiry proceeding that he is belonging to S.C. category. He has also admitted that he got prepared the certificate of S.T. In the O.A. itself, the applicant has admitted that he got the service under S.T. quota. So it is apparent from the record that the caste certificate, issued to the applicant, was of S.C. and not of S.T. but the caste certificate produced by the applicant before the authority is that of S.T. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the respondents have committed an apparent mistake by not referring the matter to the State Level Scrutiny Committee as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Km. Madhuri Patil and another (supra). He also cited some Orders passed by this Tribunal in similar matters where the matter has been referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee on the basis of Judgment in Km. Madhuri Patils case (supra).
11. We have respectfully gone through the Judgment of Km. Madhuri Patils case (supra). In that case, the status of Hindu Koli was in dispute as to whether the sub caste Hindu Koli comes under the category of S.T. or O.B.C. and the Honble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for determining such disputes whereas in the present case it is apparently clear from the record that there is no such dispute between the parties. Admittedly, applicant belongs to S.C. category but he has obtained the certificate showing him to be S.T. candidate. The respondents have also filed annexure CA-1 on record which specifically shows that the State Government of U.P. has issued a notification on 03.07.2003 relating to the list of S.T. which specifically shows that the sub caste Gond was included in the list of S.T. in some particular districts only and the district Kushinagar is not included in that list. In other words, before 2003 sub caste Gond was under the category of S.C. in Uttar Pradesh even in the districts mentioned in the aforesaid notification and even after notification in the year 2003, the sub caste Gond of District Kushinagar has not been included in the category of S.T. by the State Government of U.P. So from any point of view, the applicant cannot be said to be a candidate of S.T. but he has obtained the service on the strength of a caste certificate showing him to be a candidate of S.T. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Km. Madhuri Patil (supra) are not at all attracted in the present case since there is no dispute regarding identity of sub caste Gond regarding its category in District Kushinagar of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the applicant cannot get any benefit of the observation made by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Km. Madhuri Patils case (supra). In the present case, as already discussed above, the applicant knowing himself to be a S.C. candidate admittedly obtained a caste certificate of S.T. and got the service posing himself to be a candidate of S.T. The Honble Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 105 has observed as follows: -
A person procuring appointment in a post meant for a reserved category candidate, on the basis of a false caste certificate, is not a person holding a civil post within the meaning of Art. 311. Such appointment is no appointment in the eye of law. Hence, dismissal of a person so appointed does not attract Article 311.
The observations made in the aforesaid case are fully applicable in the present O.A.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that proper opportunity has not been given to the applicant during the inquiry proceedings. The respondents have rebutted this contention also. A perusal of inquiry proceedings shows that sufficient opportunities have been given to the applicant to put up his case and in view of his own admission that he belongs to S.C. category there was no scope of much more inquiry than it has been done in this case.
13. In view of aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the O.A. is devoid of merit and it deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ms. B. Bhamathi) {Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member (A) Member (J)
/M.M/
4