Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Naba Kishore Nayak vs National Aluminium Company Limited on 13 September, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
Reserved on 09.09.2024 Pronounced on 13.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Naba Kishore Nayak, aged about 59 years, S/o:
Madhabananda Nayak, Permanent resident At/PO;-
Jodum, PS:-Narasinghpur, Dist:-Cuttack, At Present
Qtr.No. C/217, Nalco Nagar, Angul, Odisha, PIN-759145.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India retd. through its Secretary, Ministry of
Mines, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Delhi, PIN-110 001.
2. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD (a Govt. of
India Enterprise), represented through its Chairman-
Cum-Managing Director, Corporate Office at NALCO
Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda,
PIN-751 013.
3. The Director (H&A), National Aluminum Company Ltd.,
(A Government of India Enterprise) Corporate Office at
NALCO Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist.
Khurda, PIN-751 013.
4. The General Manager (I&E & Compliance), NALCO (A
Govt. of India Enterprise), Corporate Office at NALCO
Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda,
PIN-751 013.
2 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
5. The Deputy General Manager (H&A), National
Aluminum Company Ltd., (A Government of India
Enterprise), Corporate Office at NALCO Bhawan, P/1,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, PIN-751 013.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
For the respondents: M/s. M.K.Mishra, Sr. Counsel,
D.K.Pattnaik, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Short facts of the matter are that on the allegation that the applicant secured the employment in National Aluminum Company Ltd. (NALCO) as Sr. Operator Trainee on 10.09.1985 on the strength of a certificate that he belongs to 'Scheduled Caste' community, which was fake, the matter was inquired into by State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack. The Committee after due discussion and deliberation submitted its report vide letter No. 5612/XVI-29/2017 dated 01.05.2023 recommending to take appropriate penal action against the applicant, who was recruited as Sr. Operator Trainee in NALCO Angul on 18.09.1985 by submitted a fake SC Caste Certificate. Upon receipt of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority of the NALCO in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 27 of the NALCO CDA Rules, dismissed 3 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 the service of the applicant with immediate effect vide order dated 05.05.2023.
2. The applicant has challenged the said report of the State Level Scrutiny Committee before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 17245/2023. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 12.06.2023 while issuing notice to the opposite parties made therein, as an interim measure was pleased to direct that "no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the next date". According to the applicant, enclosing copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 12.06.2023, he submitted representation on 22.06.2023 requesting that since his termination is based on the report of the SLSC without following due process of rules and without complying with the principle of natural justice, the order of termination needs to be reviewed/recalled. Thereafter, alleging inaction on the part of the NALCO authority, he has approached this Tribunal in the present OA praying inter alia to quash the order dated 05.05.2023 (A/8) for the same is against the Constitutional mandate and against the NALCO CDA Rules, 1984. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to 4 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 reinstate him to service forthwith and grant him all consequential service benefits retrospectively.
3. Respondents filed the counter contesting the case of the applicant and the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant by relying on the stand taken in the OA, rejoinder and his notes, has submitted that on the face of the interim order granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on 12.06.2023 the applicant ought to have been taken into service since the SLSC report cannot be taken as final pending disposal of the Writ Petition No. 17245/2023 filed by the applicant challenging the very SLSC report. It is contended that the SLSC has no authority to recommend penal action against him and, therefore, the report is no report in the eyes of law. According to him, since based on the SLSC report, Scheduled Caste Certificate granted by the competent authority has not been cancelled/annulled, the termination is bad in law. Further, it is contended that termination/dismissal is one of the punishment provided in the NALCO CDA Rules, 1984 and the pre-
conditions/procedures to be adhered to before passing such order is also in built in the said Rules whereas without adhering to the said 5 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 procedure provided in the rules, terminating his services solely based on the SLSC report is bad in law. Next contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that be that as it may, compliance of natural justice in every administrative action is sine qua non but no such notice was put to the applicant before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed. To substantiate the contentions advanced and discussed above, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed the copy of the NALCO CDA Rules, copy of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1980), the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of UOI Vs. B.N.Jha, Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 2000, UOI & Ors. Vs. S.K.Kapoor, (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 725, State of UP Vs. Satrughan Lal & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 3038, and D.B.Gohil Vs. UOI & Ors, (2011) 1 SCC(L&S) 213.
5. On the other hand, relying on the stand taken in the counter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the stand of the applicant that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 28 of NALCO CDA Rules, 1984 is not correct at all. The applicant entered to the 6 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 service by producing fake Caste Certificate, therefore, in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, the matter was referred to SLSC. The SLSC reached the final conclusion after giving adequate opportunity to the applicant as is evident from the order dated 13.04.2023. The SLSC found that the applicant does not belong to SC Community and had entered into service as Sr. Operator Trainee in NALCO, Angul by obtaining and producing a false Caste Certificate that he belongs to SC. It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has held that a person who obtains appointment by producing a false caste certificate against the reserved post deprives a genuine candidate falling in the said category of appointment to that post and, therefore, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the Court. It is submitted that he, who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. Since the applicant entered into service by submitting false/fake caste certificate against a post meant for reserved category, his appointment is per se illegal and void ab-initio. After the 7 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 report of the SLSC, no further opportunities were required to be given to the applicant. Insofar as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that applicant's termination has been stayed by the competent court in the meantime, it is submitted that such contention of the applicant is totally false as the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dtd. 12.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 17245 of 2023, as an interim measure, directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till the next date but in the instant case, the order of termination is prior to the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. If, according to the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the termination is against the order of the Hon'ble High Court, he should have agitated the matter before the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition, which is pending adjudication. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that on the face of the report of the SLSC, the action taken cannot be faulted with merely because the Caster Certificate has not been cancelled. None exhaustion of departmental remedy provided under the rules before approaching this Tribunal is in violation of the statutory provision made under Section 20 of the AT Act has been taken as one of the grounds for dismissal of this OA. Further, it is contended that since the SLSC came 8 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 to the conclusion after giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and his dismissal is based on the said report, issuance of notice prior to the impugned order would not have any effect, and, law to the above effect is well settled that where the ultimate result will be the same issuance of notice is only a mere formality and, therefore, non-issuance of notice in such circumstances cannot be faulted with. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that when it is established that the applicant has obtained the employment by producing false certificate, no notice was required to be given. In order to substantiate the submissions noted above, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4636 of 2008.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the records. We have also gone through the decision relied on by the parties and the written notes of submission filed by the respondents.
7. Since, respondents had questioned the very maintainability of this OA on the face of Rule 35 of the NALCO CDA Rules, 1984 and the 9 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 provision of Section 20 of AT Act, we would like to produce both the provisions as under:
"Rule 35 Appeals:-
An employee may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified ecified in rule 26 or against the order of suspension referred to in rule 23. The appeal shall lie to the authority specified in the Schedule.
(1) to An appeal shall be preferred within one month from the date of communication of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed the appellate Authority specified in the schedule and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the appellate authority within 15 days. The appellate authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders within three months of the date of appeal. The appellate authority may pass orders confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Provided that, if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is a major penalty specified in clauses (e), (f) and (g) of the rule 26 and an inquiry as provided in rule 28 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall direct that such an inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of the rule 28 and thereafter consider the record of the inquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper. If the appellate authority decides to enhance the punishment but an inquiry has already been held as provided in rule 28, the appellate authority shall give a show cause notice to the employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him. The appellate authority shall pass final order after taking into account the representation if any, submitted by the employee."10 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
Section 20 of the AT Act, provides as under:
"1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,--
(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired".
8. From the record, it is established that based on the SLSC report, the competent authority vide order dated 05.05.2023 issued the order of dismissal. The applicant challenged the SLSC report before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 12.06.2023 directed not to take any coercive action. The applicant sent the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa through representation dated 22.06.2023 seeking recall/review of the order dated 05.05.2023 but he did not avail the opportunity of statutory appeal against the order dated 05.05.2023 though available to him 11 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 under the rules. Therefore, strictly on the face of the specific provision of Section 20 of AT, Act, this OA on its face value is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
9. Be that as it may, according to the applicant, on the face of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 12.06.2023, the order of dismissal is bad in law does not sound to appeal because the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is after his termination order dated 05.05.2023 but the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is silent on the same, which prima facie appears that the applicant did not bring the said order of dismissal to the kind notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. The applicant did not produce any evidence to show that any further coercive action after the order dated 12.06.2023 is taken against him by the respondents. Hence, this stand of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant falls to the ground.
10. Next contention of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that the dismissal is one of the major penalty proceedings as per the rules, but the procedure prescribed under the said rules before passing the order was not followed. We find that the applicant secured the job on the strength of the Caste Certificate produced by him. The said Caste 12 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 Certificate was subjected to scrutiny by the SLSC in terms of the Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) where the applicant participated and finally the SLSC held that the Caste Certificate produced by the applicant for securing his job was fake. Therefore, he was dismissed from service.
11. We have also gone through the decision relied on by the applicant in the case of S.K.Kapoor (supra). In the said case, imposition of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding without supplying the UPSC report was held to be bad in law, which is not the case in hand. Hence, the said decision has no application to the present case. Similarly, in the case of B.N.Jha (supra), disciplinary proceedings was initiated by the disciplinary authority as per the direction of an higher authority higher. The order of dismissal was imposed without due application of mind and without supplying document to make defence. The Hon'ble Apex Court held the proceedings bad in law, which is also not the case in hand. The applicant has also relied on the decision in Satrughan Lal case (supra) where the disciplinary proceedings was challenged and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that supply of document, which has been taken for consideration, ought to have been supplied to the applicant therein that is also not the case of the applicant herein. Similar is the 13 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 situation insofar as decision in the case of D.B.Gohil (supra) is concerned and, therefore, the said decision has no application to the case in hand.
12. According to the applicant, he has challenged the SLSC report before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa knowing fully well that as long as said report stands, dismissal order is justified. No protection should be given to persons who secure public employment through false caste certificates. It is immaterial whether the caste certificate was submitted fraudulently or due to a genuine mistaken belief. Intent is of no consequence. Granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance. The said protection would allow an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource, violate the rights of an eligible person, and perpetuate illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person is the law of the land as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs Madhumita Das & Ors. Employment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644. Further, to fortify, we would like to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 14 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 1469, which reads as under:
"This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all".
The above view has been reiterated in the case of Food Corporation of India vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670.
15 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
13. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"55. [...] The intent of a candidate may be of relevance only if there is a prosecution for a criminal offence. However, where a civil consequence of withdrawing the benefits which have accrued on the basis of a false caste claim is in issue, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to import the requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the Bench of two Judges in Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] has, with great respect, fallen into error. The judgment in Shalini [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC 526 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 265] must, therefore, be held not to lay down the correct principle. In the very nature of things it would be casting an impossible burden to delve into the mental processes of an applicant for a caste certificate."
14. Further, in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 486, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"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."...
15. In view of the facts discussed above, since dismissal was on the basis of the SLSC report wherein after giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant it was held that the applicant secured the appointment on 16 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 the strength of a Caste Certificate, which was found fake, in such an event Article 311 (2) is not attracted, thus, in the instant case, none observance of the pre-condition for dismissal, as per the law, noted above falls flat.
16. In case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Manjeet Singh [2007] 1 SCC (L&S) 16, it has been held that the principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the law, since issuance of prior notice would not have made any impact in view of the SLSC report, dismissal without notice cannot be said to be unjustified.
17. The respondents' counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (supra), which was found to be a case of securing job by producing fake Caste Certificate. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case is quoted below:
17 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023
"10. The sequence and the narration of facts above leaves little doubt in our mind that the caste certificate, on the basis whereof the employee got employment, was false to her knowledge. Based on that the Scrutiny Committee, on reconsideration after remand by the High Court, vide order dated 29th May, 2003, again invalidated employee's caste certificate, resulting in termination of the services by order dated 28th June, 2003 (supra). As noted above, the said order of the Scrutiny Committee having not been challenged, has attained finality and remains in operation. It is, thus, not a case of mere rejection of a claim and the cited authorities are inapplicable.
11.In the above background, the questions for our consideration would be: (i) whether delay in making reference to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate as also the delay on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in such verification per se vitiates the order of termination of services of an employee, even when the certificate is ultimately found to be false and (ii) whether because of the employee having rendered services to the employer for over twenty years, would it be equitable to cancel her appointment, when admittedly in the first instance the employee was not eligible for such appointment?
12.Both the issues are no longer res integra. The implications of misuse of the benefits conferred by the Constitution on a particular section or sections of the citizenry were highlighted by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.5. It was said that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. Therefore, with a view to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, the Court issued as many as fifteen directions. One of the directions so issued, was that as soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned, or the appointing authority with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. Thereupon, the admission or the appointment (1994) 6 SCC 241 shall be cancelled without any 18 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 further notice to the candidate and the candidate shall be debarred from further study or continue in office in a post.
13. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of services for a long period has been considered and rejected in a series of decisions of this Court and we deem it unnecessary to launch on exhaustive dissertation on principles in this context. It would suffice to state that except in a few decisions, where the admission/appointment was not cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. An act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due, tantamounts to fraud. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. [See: R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.68 Bank of India (supra), Addl. General Manager (supra), Derry Vs. Peek7, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education & Ors.8 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.9]
14.In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.10, this Court had observed that fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.
15.Recently, in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr.11, dealing with a similar situation, this Court has observed thus:
"The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who 19 O.A.No. 260/00444 of 2023 is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter."
16.Having considered the matter in the light of the afore- stated legal position, in our judgment, the decision of the High Court is untenable. As noted supra, the employee having accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the caste certificate furnished by the employee was false, the very foundation of her appointment vanished and her appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct renders her unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination of her service. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for her claim in respect of the post merely on the ground that she had worked on the post for over twenty years. The post was meant for a reserved candidate but she usurped the same by misrepresentation and deception. In our opinion, the fact that caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after ten years of her joining the service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts does not validate the caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment.
17.We are also unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned counsel for the employee that in the absence of any finding of fraud having been played by the employee, the order of the High Court is equitable and should not be interfered with. As noted above, the selection of the employee was conceived in deceit and, therefore, could not be saved by equitable considerations.
18. In view of the aforegoing discussion, the impugned judgment and order quashing the order of termination of service of the employee and directing her reinstatement cannot be sustained. The order of termination based on the report of the Scrutiny Committee does not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court should not have interfered with the same."
18. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we see no justification to interfere in the instant OA, which is dismissed accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS