Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P M Joseph vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 14 January, 2026
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00200/2021
Wednesday this the 14th day of January 2026
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P.M.Joseph, S/o.P.J.Mathew, Aged 53 years,
Master Crafts Man (MCM) (Weapon Fitter),
Battery Shop, Naval Ship Repair Yard, Kochi - 680 004.
Residing at Pottananickal House, Mechal P.O.,
Valakam, Kottayam. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.Ram Prasad Unni.T, Mr.S.M.Prasanth
& Mr.Renjith.G)
versus
1. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence,
Rajpath, E Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Vice Admiral, Chief of Personnel,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Navy),
C-Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Flag Officer Commanding in Chief,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi - 682 004. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 1 st January, 2026 the
Tribunal on 14th January 2026 delivered the following :
A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30'
-2-
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Heard both sides in extenso. Briefly stated the facts are as under - The applicant was appointed as a temporary Tradesman in the trade of Weapon Fitter Skilled under the Flag Officer Commanding, Southern Naval Command, Kochi from 01.02.1993. He entered service on a Scheduled Tribe Certificate where he and the members of his family were treated as Mala Arayan belonging to Melukavu in Kottayam District. The caste of the applicant was entered by his parent as Mala Araya at the time of entry in the CMS High School, Melukavu. This was carried over to his SSLC book, the extract of which is produced as Annexure A-1. While working as such he was issued with a show cause notice from the SC & ST Development Department, Government of Kerala, calling upon him to show cause why he shall not be proceeded against for claiming Mala Araya Community. After comprehensive proceedings the Scrutiny Committee passed an order directing the authority to remove him from service. It is claimed that there is no finding that he has ever made a false claim which is mandatory under Section 11 of the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -3- Court quashed that order but granting liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. A copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.26916/2008 dated 06.06.2018 is produced as Annexure A-2. Subsequent departmental proceeding was conducted in which a report was submitted finding that the charges against the applicant were not proved. Differing from that a memo was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceedings shall not be proceeded against in spite of the finding in the inquiry. This is produced as Annexure A-3. A detailed representation was submitted on 02.11.2020, which is produced as Annexure A-4. Consequently an order was issued on 31.03.2021, which is produced as Annexure A-5. The applicant claims that he was not given sufficient opportunity prior to the issue of the said order. He also submits that Annexure A-5 order is in violation and contempt of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the abovementioned W.P.(C).
2. The respondents submit that the applicant was appointed as Weapon Fitter (SK) on 01.02.1993 against the vacancy reserved for ST candidate. A detailed inquiry conducted by the Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies for SC/ST (KIRTADS) and A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -4- submitted their report vide its letter dated 22.01.1998 wherein it was stated that the applicant did not belong to Scheduled Tribe Mala Araya Community, but belongs to Christian Community of Ezhava origin and was enjoying the benefit exclusively meant for Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that the KIRTADS further directed to terminate the services of the applicant and to appoint a Scheduled Tribe person in his place. This finding of KIRTADS has been challenged vide Writ Petition No.4893/1999 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 03.06.2005. An appeal against the said order has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. It is subsequent to this that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development (G) Department vide letter G.O.(MS) No.76/2008/SCSTDD dated 14.07.2008 confirmed that the applicant did not belong to Mala Araya Community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, but belonged to Christian Community of Ezhava origin and the Commission further directed that all Scheduled Tribe Certificates issued to his family be treated as cancelled and to terminate his services forthwith. This communication is produced as Annexure R-3.
A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -5-
3. It is submitted that this resulted in termination of the applicant vide Headquarters, Southern Naval Command, Kochi Order CS 2693/71 dated 30.09.2008, produced as Annexure A-4. Against this the applicant filed W.P.(C) No.26916/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court wherein it has been directed vide order dated 06.06.2018 that "the applicant should not be terminated from the service merely on the basis of Exhibit P6 viz., Government of Kerala, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development (G) Department vide Letter G.O.(MS) No.76/2008/SCSTDD dated 14.07.2008. However, the 3rd respondent is free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law." It was in compliance of these directions that a departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 was conducted against the applicant and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent, being the Disciplinary Authority, has imposed the penalty of 'Removal from Service', which is the order under challenge in this O.A.
4. It has been noticed that the penalty has been effected with effect from 30.04.2021. Copies of these orders are produced as Annexure R-5A and Annexure R-5B. While the applicant has claimed that there is no A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -6- appeal recourse against this order, it is submitted by the respondents that in accordance with Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 a Government servant, including a person who has ceased to be in Government service, can prefer an appeal against the order of penalty to the authority specified in the said rules. It is also submitted that the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.26916/2008 did not interfere with the findings of the caste status of the applicant by the Scrutiny Committee and the SLP filed by the applicant was also dismissed. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has quashed neither the findings of KIRTADS or the Government of Kerala, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development (G) Department vide letter G.O. (MS) No.76/2008/SCSTDD dated 14.07.2008. It has merely directed that the applicant shall not be terminated from the service only on the basis of the Government of Kerala, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development (G) Department letter dated 14.07.2008 but granted liberty to the respondents to take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
5. In this case the only question which actually survives is whether the findings of the KIRTADS has been upheld upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court and when no personal fraud has been found against the A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -7- applicant whether the penalty of 'Removal from Service' would be deemed to be disproportionate punishment because there is no allegation of personal fraud against the applicant. The applicant seeks the benefit of compulsory retirement. In support of this it has been argued that the Administrative Tribunals has the power to interfere with the quantum of penalty shocking the conscience of the Court and gives it the power to modify the penalty. It has also been argued that pension is not a future benefit but deferred compensation to the service benefits rendered by the applicant. Multiple case-laws has been provided wherein it has been held that future benefits are admissible in case of no findings of personal fraud, and although the benefits of reservation wrongfully claimed, the benefits of past services should not have been taken away.
6. The case-laws cited by the applicant are as under -
(i) K.N.Gopalakrishnan & Ors. vs. The Scrutiny Committee & Ors., M.F.A.No.1007/1999.
(ii) K.N.Pushpavally & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., M.F.A.No.107/2006.
(iii) Chaitanya vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 KHC Online 7472.
A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -8-
(iv) Sahab Singh (D) through L.Rs vs. Director General, RPF Rail Bhawan & Ors., Civil Appeal No.13402/2015.
(v) General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank vs. B.S.N.Prasad, 2025 KHC Online 7064.
(vi) Dr.Sunil Kumar Singh vs. Bihar Legislative Council (through Secretary), 2025 (2) KLT SN 14 (C.No.11) SC.
(vii) Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum vs. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2025 (5) KHC 191.
(viii) Haridasan vs. State Bank of Travancore, 2017 (2) KLT
952.
(ix) Principal Secretary to Government & Ors. vs. T.K.Surendran & Ors., 2016 KHC 785.
(x) P.B.Bhanumathi Amma & ors. vs. State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary & Ors., W.A.No.1245/2018.
(xi) Thankappan A.H & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2019 KHC 126.
7. The case-laws cited by the respondents are as under -
(i) Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs. Madhumita Das, (2023) KHC Online 6794.
(ii) Selvarani.C vs. Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector, (2024) KHC Online 6657.
(iii) Union of India vs. Dattatray & Ors., 2008 (2) KHC 99.
(iv) Viswanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala, 2004 KHC 117. A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -9-
(v) Bank of India & Anr. vs. Avinash D Mandivikar & Ors., 2005 KHC 1439.
(vi) Chandrabhan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2021 KHC Online 6367.
(vii) Chairman & Managing Director FCI & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors., 2017 KHC 6450.
8. It is very clear that the findings of the KIRTADS survives and has been upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Here, we are dealing with the consequential relief for the applicant. When we look at the order of the Hon'ble High Court produced at Annexure A-2 it is merely stated therein that the respondent department cannot act directly upon the communications from KIRTADS without proper proceedings. In the consequential disciplinary proceeding while the inquiry officer did not find anything against the report but it has found that there is no element of fraud. The only disagreement is on what would be the appropriate proceeding against the applicant. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal in the case of quantum of penalty is limited. The question of disproportionality has not been raised in the O.A at all. The findings of KIRTADS is also not under challenge nor can it be and is, therefore, final. It has also been argued that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Principal Secretary to Government & Ors. vs. T.K.Surendran & A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -10- Ors., 2016 KHC 785 is not binding, is per incuriam and is against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant has no case that he is a 'Mala Araya' and his only claim is that the said entry of caste has been made by his parent and he has not committed any fraud. We would frame the question differently. The reservation is granted under the Constitution to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate. The question whether the applicant is a member of 'Mala Araya' community is not even the question under discussion. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhubaneswar Development Authority vs. Madhumita Das, (2023) KHC Online 6794 and Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, 2017 (8) SCC 670 are absolutely clear and binding. Once that claim/stand to be a member of Scheduled Tribe community is voided, entry into the service on the basis of reservation granted to a member of Scheduled Tribe community would also be voided. In Jagdish Balaram Bahira (supra) it has been held as follows -
"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 A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -11- 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."
9. This order holds the field as on date. The question of personal fraud would be relevant only in the case of criminal proceeding, however, for civil proceeding his culpability is not relevant. Two further questions remain. The first one, as argued by the applicant, is that this is contrary to the order of the Hon'ble High Court wherein it has been held that the respondents cannot proceed solely on the basis of communications from KIRTADS. A full disciplinary proceeding has been conducted subsequently and given that the findings in the KIRTADS report have been upheld, it is not open to the respondents to ignore the findings of KIRTADS while taking a decision. The second is the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases to the beneficiaries of wrongful claim for reservation. It is noted that in all cases cited the issue was benefit of entry into educational institutions A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -12- where the education had been completed and where voiding of the admission based on the wrong certificate would have caused loss to the Government in terms of loss of expenditure incurred by the Government to the education of the incumbent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently treated entry into education and entry in employment differently.
10. It is to be noted that in this instance there is a clear finding that there is no fraud committed by the applicant at all. This is also the finding of the Inquiry Authority. This is not controverted by the Disciplinary Authority. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra) and Bhubaneswar Development Authority are based on the clear finding of fraud being committed. In this instance, although the applicant was a practising Christian, there are Scheduled Tribes who are practising Christian is undoubted. So it is wrong to presume that the applicant was aware of the fraud committed by his father at the time of claiming the benefit of reservation. The fact of the applicant having rendered over 30 years of service is also undoubted and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held on multiple ocassions that pensionary benefits are not a bounty but A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -13- deferred earnings and should not be denied without cause. In the absence of a fraud, wrongful and fraudulent claims cannot be equated. The fact of a wrongful claim is undisputed on the findings of the KIRTADS which has been upheld right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore the continuance of the applicant in service can most certainly not be permitted. However, in the absence of a fraudulent claim made by the applicant himself at the time of entry into service, it cannot be held that the applicant is to be denied the rightful benefit of his service and in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court finding the rightful benefit of his service includes the entitlement of pension. It is found that the applicant cannot be denied his pensionary and related benefits. The effect of the penalty imposed would be to deny him such benefits and in the absence of a finding of a fraudulent claim, such a penalty is disproportionate and hence, this Tribunal would be within its jurisdiction to direct modification of the penalty to compulsory retirement.
12. On the basis of the above findings, the O.A is allowed. The respondents are directed to disburse the benefits due to the applicant forthwith, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -14- receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, interest at the rate of 6% would be applied on his pensionary and related dues. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026) V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -15- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00200/2021
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the SSLC book of the applicant.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No.26916 of 2008 dated 06.06.2018.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the Memo No.PA/03/2690/05 (PM) dated 06.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the representation dated 02.11.2020 submitted by the applicant before R2.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Order No.CPT(DV)/5315/D/19/ PMJ dated 31.03.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the proceedings of the Departmental Inquiry dated 14.10.2019 conducted against the applicant initiated vide NSRY (Kochi) Memorandum No.PA/03/2690/05 dated 12.02.2019.
7. Annexure R-1 - A copy of the HQSNC appointment order CS 4376/44 dated 01.02.1993.
8. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the Vigilance Cell, Directorate of KIRTADS, Kozhikode Anthropological Report dated 22.01.1998.
9. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the Government of Kerala SC/ST Development (G) Department vide letter G.O.(MS) No.76/2008/SCST DD dated 14.07.2008.
10. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the HQSNC order CS 2693/71 dated 30.09.2008.
11. Annexure R-5A - A copy of the HQSNC letter CS 2693/71 dated 27.05.2021.
12. Annexure R-5B - A copy of the NSRY(K) CE list No.47/2021 dated 30.04.2021.
A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30' -16-
13. Annexure R-6A - A copy of the reply dated 22.11.1997 submitted by the father of the applicant before the Vigilance Cell, KIRTADS.
14. Annexure R-6B - Free English translation of Annexure R-6A.
_______________________________ A S Peethambaran 2026.01.14 14:27:16+05'30'