Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surinder Sharma vs Union Of India . on 20 February, 2014
°L
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2571 OF 2010
SURINDER SHARMA .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
The appellant was inducted into the service of the DCW, Indian
Railways, Patiala on 20.05.1981 against the post of Typist in the Accounts
Department. He passed the departmental examination of Accounts for
promotion, whereupon, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-I, and
thereafter, as Accounts Assistant with effect from 04.04.1991. Onward
promotion of the appellant from the post of Accounts Assistant was
dependent upon his qualifying further departmental examinations. While
applying for being allowed to appear in the departmental examinations, the
appellant represented that he had qualified the B.A.Part-II examination,
and thereafter, that he had obtained the graduation qualification as well.
This factual representation made by the appellant was found to be false by
his employer. Resultantly, he was issued a Memorandum dated 07.08.1998
containing the following articles of charge:
"Article-I
That the said Shri Surinder Sharma, now Accounts Asstt.,
in grade Rs.5000-8000/- at D.C.W. Patiala, while applying for
the post of Welfare Inspector during the year 1994, submitted
the attested copy of the fake B.A. Part-II marks sheet bearing
No. Sr.C/6252, dated 14.07.79 along with the application. Hence,
Shri Sharma has misrepresented the facts and committed serious
misconduct. Thus, the said Shri Surinder Sharma, Account
Asstt.D.C.W.Patiala failed to maintain absolute integrity and
acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant and thereby
violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(i) & (iii) of
Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
Article-II
That the said Shri Surinder Sharma, now Accounts Asstt. in
grade Rs.5000-8000 at DCW, Patiala, while applying for the IREM
Appendix II examination during the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 has
shown his qualification as B.A. in the said applications.
During years 1990 and 1991, while applying for the IREM Appendix
III examination, he claimed his qualification as Graduate. But
in fact, his qualification is not B.A. or Graduate. By the
above acts, Shri Sharma has misrepresented the facts and
committed serious irregularities. Thus, the said Surinder
Sharma, Accounts Asstt., D.C.W., Patiala failed to maintain
absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway
servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule
3(1)(i) & (iii) of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966."
It is not a matter of dispute that after the culmination of the
departmental proceedings held against the appellant, he was inflicted the
punishment of termination from service. The departmental remedies availed
by him did not result in any favourable order. Original Application No.239-
PB-2000 was then filed by the appellant to assail the punishment order,
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The said
Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
20.08.2002. It is in the above circumstances, that the appellant preferred
Civil Writ Petition No.12923 of 2003 before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’).
The High Court while examining the assertions made on behalf of
the appellant arrived at the conclusion, that the appellant had produced
false certificates to seek/enter public service/employment, and as such,
was not entitled to any relief, even on the issue of quantum of punishment.
The instant observations of the High Court, are apparent from the
following extract of the impugned order:
"In the present case, the petitioner has produced a fake
certificate at the time of seeking appointment with the
respondent and had made a false representation of his being a
graduate. A person, who has entered into the public service on
the basis of a fake document, does not deserve any leniency. He
has usurped the public office on the basis of forged
certificate. He has misappropriated the public funds on the
basis of forged documents."
It is in the above circumstances, that when this Court examined the claim
of the appellant for the first time on 20.07.2009, while confirming the
correctness of the procedure adopted in the departmental proceedings held
against the appellant, issued notice limited to the quantum of punishment
inflicted upon the appellant. The above order dated 20.07.2009 is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"Delay condoned. The impugned order has been based on
correct appreciation of the evidence. Mr. Anupam Lal Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
had put in 18 years of unblemished service record when his
services had been dispensed with and as such in the peculiar
circumstances the penalty of dismissal may be converted into one
of compulsory retirement.
Issue notice on this limited question."
After completing the pleadings in the matter, the matter has now been
listed before us for final disposal. The primary question to be taken into
consideration to determine the veracity of punishment inflicted upon the
appellant is, whether the fake claim allegedly made by him (indicating that
he had qualified B.A.Part-II examination and thereafter, had obtained the
graduation qualification) was with the objective of gaining entry into
public service/employment; or with the aim of bettering his prospects in
the matter of onward promotion; or even for acquiring eligibility to appear
in a departmental examination. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter
is concerned, it is not the case of the respondent before this Court, that
the appellant had either gained eligibility for appointment or promotion or
for participating in a departmental examination(s).
The punishment to be inflicted upon the appellant, would therefore,
have to be viewed in the backdrop of the fact, that even though the
appellant had claimed to have qualified B.A.Part-II examination and
thereafter, the graduation qualification, falsely, he did not derive any
service benefit based thereon. This Court, when it passed the motion Bench
order dated 20.07.2009, also noticed that the appellant had rendered 18
years of service by the time of the order of termination was passed. We are
of the view that the High Court was incorrect in believing that the
appellant had produced the fake educational certificates, to seek
appointment/employment, whereas factually, he did not do so. The instant
aspect of the matter, makes a whole lot of difference, in the delinquency
of the appellant. In view of our above conclusion, we are of the view that
ends of justice would be met, if the order of punishment is altered from
that of ‘termination’ to ‘compulsory retirement’. Ordered accordingly.
The instant appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
...........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
...........................J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2014.
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2571 OF 2010
SURINDER SHARMA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report for direction)
Date: 20/02/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Appellant(s) Mr.Amanpreet Rahi, Adv.
Mr.Hittan Nehra, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Mohan Jain, ASG
Mr.Anil Kaushik, Adv.
Mr.D.K.Thakur, Adv.
Mr.R.K.Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The instant appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Assistant Registrar ( Signed order is placed on the file )