Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 December, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
O.A.No.1894/2011
New Delhi, this the 3rd day of December, 2012
Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh
s/o Shri Pulkit Singh
r/o H.No.605, Janta Flats
GTB Enclave
Nand Nagri
Delhi 93. Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Arun Kumar Singh)
Versus
The Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
New Secretariat
Near Indira Gandhi Stadium
I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
The Dy. Director, Education
District North-West (A)
B-L Block, Shalimar Bagh
New Delhi.
The National Council for Teacher Education
(a statutory body of Govt. of India)
Through the Member Secretary
Wing-II, Hans Bhawan
1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002.
The Eastern Regional Committee
National Council for Teacher Education
(a statutory body of Govt. of India)
Through, its Regional Director
15, Nilakantha Nagar, Nayapalli
Bhubaneshwar 751 015 (Orissa). Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri B.N.P.Patthak)
O R D E R (Oral)
By G. George Paracken, Member (J):
The applicant, in this case, is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A1 order dated 15.09.2010. By the said order, his services stood terminated as per sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 with retrospective effect of 07.07.2005 as his appointment as TGT (English) was held ab initio void.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants name having been nominated by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (in short as `DSSSB), he was offered a temporary post of TGT (English) and was posted in Govt. Co-ed SSS, Mukhmailpur, Delhi with effect from 07.08.2004. He accepted all the terms and conditions specified in the offer of appointment dated 10.03.2004 which includes the clause that if at any stage it was proved that the certificates/documents submitted by him are false or fake then his employment will be terminated without any notice, in addition to initiation of any penal action as warranted/deemed fit. However, later on it was found that B.Ed. degree, the essential qualification for his appointment as TGT (English) as per the Recruitment Rules, has never been produced by the applicant. Though he was given several opportunities subsequently also to produce the original certificate, he failed to do so. On the other hand, he could produce only a provisional certificate issued by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Dharbhanga in support of his claim that he has the professional qualification of B.Ed. In view of the above position, the respondents terminated his services vide order dated 04.06.2005 under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
3. According to the respondents, the applicant was not holding the B. Ed. degree which was the minimum requirement for appointment to the post of TGT (English) as per the Recruitment Rules governing it. Further, it was stated that he was holding a B. Ed. qualification from a University/Institution which was not recognized by National Council for Teachers Association (in short as `NCTA), the statutory body constituted by Government of India for conducting the course of B. Ed.
4. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order before this Tribunal in OA No.1413/2005. While deciding the said OA on 18.07.2007, this Tribunal held that even though the termination order passed by the respondents was innocuous but the applicant ought to have been given a show cause notice to plead the authenticity of the B.Ed. degree or its recognition of the University. It was only after considering the reply to the show cause, his services could have been terminated. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
5. During the course of arguments, it remained undisputed that the authenticity of certificate, particularly, degree of B.Ed. obtained by the applicant from National Teachers Training College, Madhubani (Bihar) affiliated to L.N.Mithila University was inquired into and it is in that process that the respondents came to know that the said institution had been de-recognized, or that when the institution itself is fake, the order terminating services of the applicant was passed. Once, order of termination is based upon facts as mentioned above, even though the order as such may be innocuous, the applicant ought to have been given a show-cause to plead authenticity of the degree or recognition of the university. We may only mention at this stage that the case of the applicant is that de-recognition, as per settled law, could not have been retrospective and that if the institution had been de-recognized after he had obtained the degree, the same may not be enough to hold the degree obtained by the applicant as fake. Be that as it may, it is settled law that the courts can lift the veil and find out the real reason for terminating the services of an employee even though the order as such may be innocuous. It is only after hearing the applicant that his services could be terminated. That being so, the mere fact that the respondent no.1 had taken recourse to Rule 5(1)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may not be enough to terminate the services of the applicant after expiry of one months notice. The same cannot possibly sustain and the order dated 4.6.2005 is quashed. The applicant shall be entitled to consequential benefits under the rules. The respondents would be at liberty to proceed in the matter by issuing a proper show-cause notice to the applicant and then pass an order in accordance with law.
6. We have heard learned counsel for respondents nos.4 and 5 as well but in the context of the relief that we have granted, it does not appear that respondents nos.4 and 5 are necessary parties. Therefore, there is no need to give decision on the point raised by the learned counsel as referred to above. Costs are made easy.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal, the respondents reinstated the applicant in service, vide order dated 13.03.2008. Thereafter, they issued a show cause notice to him vide letter No.581-584 dated 28.03.2008 calling upon him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated as he was not holding a valid Degree or he has produced the same for verification. However, his appointment was made on the basis of the provisional certificate issued by the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga under the bona fide impression that he is eligible for the post of TGT (English). The applicant submitted reply to the aforesaid notice on 09.04.2008. In the meantime, the respondents have also received a letter dated 06.10.2008 from the Under Secretary, Eastern Region Committee, National Council for Teachers Association, a statutory body of Government of India, wherein it has been stated that the recognition granted for B.Ed course for the session of 1999-2000 vide order No.F.7-9/99-ERC/7633 dated 23.2.1999 was subsequently withdrawn with immediate effect vide letter No.F.7-10/99-ERC/9415 dated 04.06.1999. The degrees/certificates issued to the students pursuant to the B.Ed examination 1998 conducted by Lalit Narayan Mithila Univesity, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga were also declared invalid for the purpose of employment under Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act for misrepresentation of the facts to the Committee vide letter No.F.7-13/2000-ERC/721 dated 31.03.2000. By the said letter it was also informed that the aforesaid institution was not granted recognition by the NCTE for B.Ed course for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 during the period the applicant claimed to have taken admission and subsequently passed the B.Ed degree course.
6. The applicant, in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 28.03.2008, submitted that he was admitted to the B.Ed course in National Teachers Training College, Madhubani, Bihar in 1997. At that time, the said College was already functioning and had apparently applied to National Council for Teacher Education (constituted under NCTE Act) for grant of recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act. Since the administrative procedure was time consuming, the NCTE, in terms of Section 14 of the said Act, vide its letter dated 30.10.1996, communicated to the said college to continue the B.Ed. course during the pendency of the application for recognition made by the College. In view of the said authority by the NCTE, the college continued the course in 1997. He has also pointed out that under the said Act, NCTE alone enjoys authority to grant/withdraw recognition to any Teacher Training College. Once the college has been recognized by NCTE, its affiliation with any University is a mere formality as the University only conducts examination and awards degrees to the successful candidates. Neither the concerned State nor the University enjoys authority to derecognize the Teacher Training College/Institute which is in the exclusive domain of the NCTE as provided under the Act. He further submitted that on completion of course, he appeared in the examination conducted by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Bihar in April, 1998 and he was declared successful securing first division (72% of marks). Thereafter he was granted a provisional degree dated 12.01.1999 by the said University which he had already submitted to the respondents. He has also stated that considering the past performance of the NCTE, vide letter dated 23.02.1999, it has granted recognition to it but subsequently due to some dispute which has arisen between the college administration and the Bihar Government, the Government made recommendation to the NCTE to withdraw recognition to the said College but the Government had no such authority to withdraw the recognition. On the other hand, under Section 14 of the Act, the NCTE alone had the power to do so. However, the NCTE, vide its letter dated 04.06.1999 withdrew recognition with immediate effect and not with retrospective effect. He has, therefore, stated that the provisional degree submitted to the respondents is valid. So far as the original certificates of 10th and 12th are concerned, they have already been deposited/submitted with the respondent-department. As far as the original degrees of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed are concerned, only the provisional degrees have been submitted but he simultaneously approached the Lalit Narayan Mithila University for supplying him the original degrees thereof. However, they certified that he has successfully qualified the aforesaid courses vide letter dated 02.04.2004 but they were not in a position to issue the original degrees for the aforesaid courses on account of unavoidable reasons. Further, he submitted that once the respondents have accepted the letter dated 19.03.2004 issued by the University certifying his M.A. and B.A. Degrees to be genuine and they have already been accepted them, they should have accepted the B.Ed degree also. In such circumstances, insisting upon that he should submit the original degree of B.Ed., till it is issued to him by the University, is clearly malafide and erroneous, particularly when the University itself has certified that on account of unavoidable reason, it was unable to supply him the original degree but at the same time certifying that the provisional certificate will be valid till original degree is issued. In such circumstances, he has stated that non-submission of original degree certificate by him, cannot be taken as a ground to remove him from service. He has, therefore, requested the respondents to take a sympathetic view in the matter as de-recognition of the collage was with effect from 04.06.1999 only and he had already passed out in 1998 and the University has also issued provisional Degree on 12.01.1999 which is valid till the original degree certificate is issued as per letter dated 02.04.2004 issued by the University.
7. The respondents have not been satisfied with the aforesaid explanation given by the applicant. Therefore, the competent authority, in the light of the letter dated 6.10.2008 received from NCTE, passed an order dated 19.12.2008 terminating his services. However, on a challenge of the said order, this Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2010 in OA No.307/2009 set aside the said termination order and directed the Directorate of Education to accord a personal hearing to the applicant. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents afforded a personal hearing to the applicant on 11.08.2010. At that time, he submitted that the order for de-recognition of the Institute was issued on 4.6.1999 and as per the Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 such de-recognition came into force only w.e.f. the end of the academic session next falling the date of communication of such orders. Hence the de-recognition which came into force from year 2000 and it would not effect the validity of his B.Ed degree which he completed in the year 1998. However, the respondents have again passed the Annexure A1 impugned order dated 15.09.2010 terminating his services with retrospective effect of 07.07.2005 on the ground that his appointment was ab initio void.
8. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that it was arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law. He has alleged total non-application of mind on the part of the competent authority while issuing the aforesaid order. He has also stated that he was reinstated on 13.03.2008 in compliance of the order dated 18.07.2007 passed by this Tribunal. But he was again terminated from service with effect from 07.07.2005 when this Tribunal had already quashed the aforesaid order dated 18.07.2007. He has also stated that the impugned termination order has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as he was not given proper opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned termination order. Therefore, it is not only violative of principles of natural justice but also in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, he has submitted that the impugned order dated 15.09.2010 is vindictive and revengeful as he had already sent a legal notice to Respondents No.1 and 2 threatening to initiate contempt proceedings for non payment of consequential benefits as ordered by this Tribunal vide its order dated 18.07.2007. He has, therefore, stated that the impugned termination order is the counter blast to the aforesaid legal notice issued to them. Further, according to him, the respondents themselves have not found any shortcoming on the qualification of the B.Ed degree.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Arun Kumar Singh and the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. B.N.P.Pathak. The admitted facts in this case are that the applicant was a student of B.Ed in the year 1997-1998 in National Teachers Training College under the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Bihar. The said University has also certified that he was a student of B.Ed course vide its certificate dated 12.01.1999. They have also issued him the mark list for the said examination on 11.02.1999 which indicates that the B.Ed examination was conducted in the month of April, 1998. In other words, there cannot be any dispute that the applicant was a student of B.Ed course for the year 1997-98 and passed the said degree scoring 724 marks out of 1000 and obtaining first division. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant has never been issued with the final degree certificate so far. The respondents have appointed him, after fully satisfied that he had the requisite qualification as evident from the provisional certificates produced by him. However, when the respondents insisted that he should produce the final B.Ed Degree certificate in original, he was duty bound to do so. He has, therefore, approached the Lalit Narayan Mithila University but he could not get it. But he obtained a certificate dated 08.11.2008 signed by the Controller of Examinations certifying that he had passed the B.Ed Examination-1997 held in the month of April, 1998 and he was placed in 1st Division. Further, it was certified that the Original Certificate is under preparation vide C.B. No.17016 dated 8.11.2008 but till the same is issued to him, the Provisional Certificate bearing No.4965 dated 12.01.1999 issued to him stating he passed the aforesaid examination may be entertained.
10. The fact of the matter is that for the last 13 years, may be for the reasons beyond his control, the applicant could not produce the original certificates. His appointment as TGT (English) was made on the basis of the provisional certificate issued to him on 12.01.1999 but with the condition that he should produce the Original Certificate at the earliest. It is true that the applicant alone cannot be blamed for not having produced the original certificate. It is also true that he cannot asked to do something which is impossible for him to do. Rather, Lalit Narayan Mithila University is the main culprit in the case. They have not issued the original certificate of the applicant for all these years. It is seen that the applicant alone is not the sufferer. All similar students who had appeared and passed in the examination are also in the same position. We also cannot find fault with the respondents as it is the condition precedent for the appointment of the applicant that he should produce the original certificate regarding his qualification of B.Ed degree. When he failed to do so, they have the right to take action against him. Therefore, the respondents have terminated his services by the impugned order dated 15.09.2010 as the applicant failed to produce the original certificate.
11. Now the question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is that whether the aforementioned impugned order of termination can be justified or not. As already stated, the entire blame cannot be put on the applicant for not submitting the original certificate. He has no mala fide intention not to produce the certificate for which he is rightly entitled. Rather, he is helpless in the matter. Unless the University issues the certificate, he cannot get it and submit to the Department. The University, on the other hand, has been assuring the applicant that they are in the process of issuing the certificates but for certain compelling reasons they did not issue them so far. We, therefore, in the interest of justice of all concerned, quash and set aside the impugned order of termination dated 15.09.2010. Consequently, the respondents shall reinstate the applicant forthwith, with retrospective effect from 07.07.2005, i.e., the date from which his services have been terminated and treat his entire service as continuous for all purposes including payment of salary and allowances. However, we still hold that it is the responsibility of the applicant to produce the Original certificate to the respondents as and when the same is issued to him by the University.. Further, his appointment will continue to be on ad hoc basis till he produces the original B.Ed. certificate and the respondents accept it after having satisfied about its genuineness.
12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this OA is disposed of directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders reinstating the applicant in service as aforesaid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Mrs. Manjulika Gautam) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrgp/