Allahabad High Court
Ashwani Kumar Dube vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 7 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:21766-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1580 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Dube Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Khare Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Akash Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Saumitra Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 130 of 2019 dated 27.9.2023.
3. Pursuant to the notification issued in October, 2016 for direct recruitment of Group-C Civilian Post in the Indian Air Force at the maintenance command unit. The petitioner has made an application for the post of Fire Engine Driver and he was selected and appointed based on the written test conducted by the respondents. He was called for interview and he was issued appointment letter on 7.6.2017. Accordingly, he has to join his duties within a week from the date of appointment letter. Based on a complaint made by his neighbor and shopkeeper namely, Lalta Prasad Pandey son of Dev Narayan Pandey, resident of Village Mardanpur, Manauri, P.S. Puramufti, District Kaushambi. Based on the said complaint, the respondents have started harassing the petitioner by issuing show cause notice dated 14.12.2017 and the petitioner/applicant submitted his reply on 29.12.2017. Further, the petitioner/applicant has also sent a legal notice on 17.10.2017 and based on the same, the respondents have issued the termination order dated 1.3.2018 vide Letter No. ED/625/1/PC by Air Commodore/Air Officer Commanding 24 ED AF Station Manauri, Allahabad. The abovesaid termination order has been issued only on the ground that the driving license of the petitioner/applicant having UP/70/2012/00035012 submitted along with the application is fake. Based on the said fake driving license, he got appointed on the said post. Hence, he filed the original application to quash the termination order dated 1.3.2018.
4. After notice, the respondent-Aloke Roy, Air Officer Commanding, 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force Station Manauri, Allahabad has filed the counter affidavit. On the basis of the said complaint made by Shri Karan and Atul Singh, which was received at Air Headquarter, Vayu Bhawan by the MOD ID Note No. 1183/D(Air-III) dated 11the July, 2017. The Air Headquarter has ordered 14 Provost & Security Unit [P&S (U)] to investigate the allegation made by the said persons and forward the report. Accordingly, investigation was conducted and the report was submitted on 24.8.2017. After receipt of the said inquiry report, Headquarter Maintenance Command vide letter dated 31.10.2017 has ordered the 24 Equipment Depot to conduct the De novo verification of character and the driving license No. 7012035012, which was submitted with the initial application. On verification of the character and antecedents from the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, it was found that three cases have been registered against the applicant i.e. NCR No. 46/12, under Sections 504, 506, 427 IPC, NCR No. 47/12, under Sections 504, 427 IPC and Crime under Section 31/13 of the Goonda Act.
5. On the basis of the verification report, it revealed that Sri Ashwani Kumar Dube has forged the document i.e. Driving License to secure the employment as Fire Engine Driver in 24 Equipment Depot. On the basis of the said De novo inquiry, Headquarter Maintenance Command vide its letter dated 15.2.2018 has instructed to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant in terms of the provision of the office memorandum issued by the DoP&T, OM No. 11012/7/91-EStt(A) dated 19.5.1993, which reads as follows:
No. 11012/7/91-Estt. (A) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) ......
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Action against Government servants to be taken if they are later found ineligible or unqualified for their initial recruitment ....
Attention to the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 39/1/67-Ests. (A) dated 21.2.1967 wherein it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (D) dated 30.4.1965 wherein Ministries /Departments where requested to make use of the provision of 'warning' inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.
2. A question has now arisen as to whether a Government servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the Government servant was not qualified or eligible for initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in judgment in the District Collector, Vizianagram Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990 (4) SLR 237) went into this issue and observed as under:
"It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice."
The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of law & Justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is found that a Government servant, who is not qualified or eligibility in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or procured false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in services. If he is is probationer or a temporary Govt. servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. If he has become permanent Govt. servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other penalty be imposed.
3. Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however, be without prejudice to the right of the Government to prosecute such Government servants.
4. Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above to the notice of all concerned for information and necessary action.
5. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
(V. NATARAJAN) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA"
6. In terms of the aforesaid office memorandum, the applicant was terminated from service on 5.3.2018 after serving show cause notice as he was under probation during that period. Subsequent to the said termination order, the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 443/2018 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad an the same was disposed of vide order dated 2.11.2018 directing Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C), HQ Maintenance Command IAF, Nagpur, who is the competent authority to decide the appeal preferred by the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. In compliance of the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 12.3.2018 was disposed of vide order dated 3.1.2019. Questioning the same, present original application has been filed by the petitioner, which is not at all maintainable on facts.
7. Apart from the above, the respondents have specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant has submitted a driving license no. 7012035012 while applying for the post of Fire Engine Driver along with his application. Now, he is claiming that he has not submitted that driving license along with the form, but on record self-attested driving license is there. Driving license was essential qualification for the candidate to apply for the post of Fire Engine Driver. Driving License having no. U.P. 6420110001512, which is submitted along with the original application is first time appear before the department, in addition to the Driving License No. UP 6420110001512, which is marked as Annexure No. A-4 of the original application. If the said driving license has to taken into consideration, the applicant could have been rejected based on the date of birth mentioned in the said driving license. Accordingly, the allegations made by the petitioner, are wrong. It is revealed from the investigation report that the applicant has tempered/forged the driving license, suppressed his actual date of birth and manipulate the verification report of character antecedent in order to secure employment as Fire Engine Driver at 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force. They have further stated that the applicant/petitioner has suppressed the information regarding criminal cases pending against him at the time of selection.
8. Based on the above observations, the Tribunal has considered the arguments and narrated the facts as highlighted. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below:
8. The main controversy involved in this petition is related to the Driving Licence. As per the applicant, he did not submit the driving Licence Number UP/70/2012/00035012, while as per the respondents, the copy of the aforesaid license was submitted by the applicant himself. According to the applicant. Licence Number UP-6420110001512 was submitted by the applicant.
9. The respondent submitted the copy of the application form and the documents submitted by the applicant. At Page-108 of the counter affidavit, the copy of the application form has been submitted. In the aforesaid application form, the photo of the applicant is also available and the signature of the applicant is found in the last portion of the application form, the declaration is also signed by the applicant which reads as under-
" I hereby certify that particulars mentioned in the application are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and we, if particulars mentioned by me are found false at any stage then I shall be liable to be terminated without any notice."
Therefore, it was the condition and undertaking of the job that if the documents or particulars are found incorrect then the services will be terminated without any notice.
10. The copy of the notification published in the newspaper, employment news dated 8th to 16th October, 2016 was also submitted by both parties. At Page-23 of the O.A the notification has been attached and at Page-71 of the counter affidavit, the same notification is also annexed as annexure CA-1. For the post of Fire Engine Driver, the qualification prescribed was "must have at least three years experience of driving a Heavy Vehicle and be in possession of a valid driving licence." In Para-7(A) of the notification it was also mentioned "all documents in support of educational qualification, age, technical qualification, physically handicapped, experience certificate and Caste Certificate issued by competent Civil Authorities in case of SC/ST/OBC candidate etc. to be accompanied the application should be self-attested.
11. Therefore, it is clear from the advertisement itself that the requirement was to submit the certificates by the candidate and the certificates should be "self-attested" by the applicant himself. In the light of the aforesaid, if we see the document submitted by the respondent then it appears that along with the application the applicant submitted the marksheet of High School examination 2013 (Page 109 of CA), Residential Certificate (Page 110 of the CA) Driving Licence (Page 111 of CA). The signature of the applicant is available upon all three documents and the aforesaid signature is totally similar to the signature upon the Application form as well as the signature upon each page of Original Application submitted before this Court. Hence, there is no any doubt about the signature. The signature putted upon the documents annexed with the application, is the signature of "self-attestation" which was required as per the advertisement. Hence, the contention of the applicant cannot be accepted that he did not file the copy of the license along with the application.
16. One inquiry was conducted upon the complaint made by Karan and Atul Singh. The very serious facts are mentioned in the aforesaid inquiry. The respondents quoted Para 4 and 5 of the aforesaid inquiry report in his counter affidavit. Para 4 and 5 of the aforementioned Inquiry Report are as under:-
4. The following position emerges from the ibid inquiry report.
(a) As per High School Certificate submitted by Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey during the recruitment, his Date of Birth is 10 February 1995. However, the candidate is a son of civilian MTD Shri NP Dubey, posted at 24 ED, AF. The Date of Birth is in residence of r/o Shri Ashwani Kamer Dubey, as recorded in the service record of his father is 10 Sep 1982.
(b) In the year 1985, Shri NP. Dubey had applied for change in Date of Birth of his son from 10 Jun 1981 to 10 Sep 1982 by producing a certificate issued by Gram Pradhan.
(c) Shri NP Dubey had availed special casual leave for 7 days from 31 Dec 1985 to 6 Jan 1986, as his wife had undergone family planning operation.
(d) Shri NP Dubey availed the benefit of LTC for his son (Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey) in the year 1993, wherein he had mentioned DoB i/r/o his son as 10 Sep 1982.
(e) In some other official documents Shri NP Dubey has mentioned DOB i/r/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey 10 Sep 1982.
(f) Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey had studied at KV Manauri and he dropped out from Class IX in the year 1996. This fact has been confirmed by school authorities during inquiry.
(g) The selected candidate has mentioned his marital status as 'unmarried' during the selection process but during course of investigation, it was found that he is married and has a daughter, studing in Class II at K.V. Manauri.
(h) Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey has submitted a police verification with no criminal record against him. However during verification process, it was found that there are three separate criminal case pending against him at OP Sallahpur, P.S. Puramufti u/s 504, 506, 427 of IPC and of u/s ¾ of UP Control of Goondas Act. These cases were registered in the year 2012/13.
(i) During the course of inquiry, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey misbehaved and also threatened the P&S (U) officer and staff of dire consequences in office premises. If they continued with the investigation.
5. It appears from the above facts that Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Fire Engine Driver, 24 ED, AF has suppressed his actual Date of Birth in order to secure employment of Fire Engine Driver at 24 ED, AF. At the same time, he suppressed the information regarding criminal cases pending against him at the time of selection. The Govt. Servant also misbehaved with the inquiry team in the office premises."
17. It is also appear from Page-6 dated 14.12.2017, which is a show cause notice issued to the applicant in relation to the date of birth and the criminal case pending against him and about the misbehaving to the SIBT by the applicant. The applicant submits the reply to the aforesaid notice. The copy of the aforesaid reply dated 29.12.2017 is annexed as Annexure A-7. It appears that no satisfactory reply was given by the applicant. Hence, prima facie, in view of this court it can be said that the allegation mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice had some substance and the applicant was unable to explain any cause.
18. In relation to the applicant, the police report was also submitted by OP Sallahpur PS Puramufti. District-Kaushambi. In the aforesaid report, it was mentioned that:-
सेवा में, जिलाधिकारी महोदय जनपद कौशांबी महोदय, सविनय निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी अश्विनी कुमार दुबे ७/० नरेंद्र प्रसाद दुबे २/० अकबरपुर, सलाहपुर P.S. पुरामुफ्ति, जनपद कौशांबी, के मूल निवासी हैं। सकूनत तस्दीक है, धाना हाजा के अभिलेखो व माननीय न्यायालय कौशांबी के अभिलेखों का अवलोकन मुझ उ0नि0 द्वारा किया गया तो प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध NCR 46/2 धारा 504. 506. 427 IPC व NCR No.47/12 धारा 504. 427 IPC व 31/13 धारा गुडाएक्ट की कार्यवाही की गई है। जिसमें आरोप पत्रमाननीयन्यायालय पेश किया गया है। जो NCR No.46/12 तथा NCR No.47/12 धारा 504, 427 IPC में अभि०/प्रार्थी द्वारा जुर्म कबूल करने पर 500+500 रु० का अर्थ दण्ड दिपा जा चुका है। व गुण्डासहारनपुर एक्ट जो सटर इलाहाबाद में विचाराधीन है। वर्ष 2013 के बाद धाना हाजा पर आवेदक के विरुद्ध कोई अभियोग पंजीकृत नहीं है। संस्तुति नहीं की जाती है।
रिपोर्ट सादर सेवा में प्रेषित है।"
Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid police report that the various crimes were registered against the applicant but he did not inform the department about the aforesaid crime. The serious facts concealed by the applicant himself regarding his criminal background.
19. As far as the date of birth is concerned, this fact cannot be doubted that his father Sri. N.P. Dubey was posted at 24-AD AF. In the service record of the father, he mentioned the date of birth of the applicant as 10.01.1981. Thereafter, the father applied for a change in the date of birth from 10.06.1981 to 10.09.1982. Therefore, the father mentioned the date of birth as 10.09.1982. The father also availed the Special Casual Leave for seven days w.e.f 31.12.1985 to 06.01.1986 for the purpose of "family planning operation" of the wife. It means the family planning operation of the mother of the applicant was done between the period of 31.12.1985 to 16.01.1986. In the aforesaid situation, the date of birth shown by the applicant becomes suspicious. As per the application form, he mentions the year of birth as 1993 and as per his High School certificate, the year is mentioned as 1995 while his father mentioned his date of birth as 10.09.1982 in his office record/ service book. The father also took the LTC for the applicant in the year 1993 and in the aforesaid application for LTC, he mentioned the date of birth as 10.09.1982. Therefore, the conduct of the applicant is suspicious His marksheet of the High School examination was also a suspicious document.
20. The applicant did not file the order passed in appeal. The applicant has filed a copy of the appeal as Annexure A-9. As per O.A. he mentioned the order of appeal as Annexure A-2 but Annexure A-2. is the letter dated 15.01.2012 related to the clearance certificate, while the respondent filed the copy of the order passed in the appeal in which various important facts have been considered and mentioned in the aforesaid order. It will be useful to mention the aforesaid Appellate Order Annexure CA-11, as it is:-
"Tele: 0712-2512771/2211 Headquarters Maintenance Command Indian Air Force Vayu Sena Nagar Nagpur-440007 MC/5915/3/974/PC Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Ex-Fire Engine Driver R/o Village Puramufti, Opposite Krishna Mandir, Post-Puramufti, District Allahabad Disposal of Appeal Dated 12 March 2018 Submitted by Shri Ashhwini Kumar Dube, Ex-fed, PA No.46064-G. 24 Equipment Depot. Air Force
1. WHEREAS, a total of 18 vacancies of Fire Fighting Staff i.e. 14 Firemant and 04 Fire Engine Drivers were released at 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force and advertised in Employment News dated 08-14 October. 2016. You had applied for the post of Fire Engine Driver and submitted driving license with number 7012035012.
2. AND WHEREAS, on having been selected, you were appointed as Fire Engine Driver with effect from 07 June 2017, with two years probation period vide appointment letter No.24 Ed/625/1/PC dated 07 June 2017.
3. AND WHEREAS, a complaint was received from Shri Karan Singh stating that you have submitted false/forged documents to secure employment at 24 Equipment Depot.
4. AND WHEREAS, you were served a show cause notice (SCN) vide 24 ED/650/FED/46064-G/PC dated 14 December 2017 and after receipt of your reply dated 29 December 2017. your services were terminated on 05 March 2013 vide 24 ED/625/1/PC dated 01 March 2018.
5 AND WHEREAS, being aggrieved with the said termination order, you had filed an OA443/2018, to quash the termination order issued by Air Officer Commanding, 24 Equipment Depot. Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal has disposed of the OA with direction to Respondent No. 04 to decide the appeal dated 12 Mar 2018 preferred by you, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order.
6. AND WHEREAS, perusal of your appeal dated 12 March 2018, reveals the following contentions made by you..
(a) Your neighbor named Shri Lalta Prasad Pandey made a complaint against you to Headquarters Central Air Command, and you were harassed by APM. 14 Provost & Security Unit Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to you by Air Officer Commanding, 24 Equipment Depot, which you replied pvide your reply dated 29 December 2017.
(b) That, subsequently considering your reply to show cause notice, you were served with termination letter 24 ED/625/1/PC dated 01 March 2018, by Air Officer Commanding, 24 Equipment Depot, in which grounds for termination were clearly brought out that in verification of your license from competent authority, your license number UP/70/2012/00035012 was found to be fake. However, in the instant appeal, you further brought out that the license submitted by you was having number UP 6420110001512 and not the aforesaid license number 7012035012, that was investigated.
(c) That the investigation report on whose basis, your services were terminated is mala fide with some tampering in the official documents as the Appointing Authority was adamant to terminate your services anyhow, whereas you had no concern with license Number UP/70/2012/00035012, referring in the termination order and you have not submitted the driving license referred to in the termination order.
(d) That, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to you before issuing termination order dated 01 March 2018.
7. AND WHEREAS, on perusal of case, the following facts have emerged:-
(a) That you were appointed as Fire Engine Driver on 07 Jun 2017 at 24 Equipment Depot and for the purpose, had submitted requisite driving license with license number 7012035012.
(b) That, pursuant to receipt of complaint from Shri Karan Singh, about your allegedly securing employment on the basis of false/forged documents at 24 Equipment Depot, an investigation was carried out by 14 Provost & Security Unit which confirmed that you in fact had submitted false/forged documents to secure the Government employment.
(c) That, while verifying your documents from the records of your father, who is a Civilian MTD at 24 Equipment Depot, it was also revealed that you had forged your date of birth, in that while applying for Government employment, you declared your date of birth as 10 February 1995 instead of actual date of birth 10 September 1982, as available in your father's records.
(d) That the police verification report at the time of appointment brought by you shows no criminal case pending against you. However, during investigation, it was found that there are three separate criminal cases pending against you at OP Sallahpur, PS Puramufti u/s 504 of IPC (insult with intent so provoke breach of peace), 506 of IPC (criminal intimidation), 427 of IPC Punishment for offense related to damages more than Rs 50/-) and u/s 3 & 4 of UP Control of Goondas Act (Externment of Goondas from any area and permission to return to that area as specified by District Magistrate). These cases were registered in the year 2012-13.
(e) That the copy of driving license number 7012035012 submitted by you for the said recruitment does not bear the requisite endorsement to drive heavy vehicle and further as per age and date of issue of license it is revealed that you had obtained LMV license on 25 Jul 12 i.e. before attaining the age of 18 years which is contrary to Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. Further, your contention that your driving license was bearing number UP 6420110001512 and not the aforesaid number 7012035012, is not legally tenable, as the held records of said recruitment clearly reveals that you had submitted license number 7012035012 only which now has a new number UP/70/2012/00035012 and belongs to some other person named Ms. Neha Madhwani.
8. AND WHEREAS, I being the Appellate Authority. having duly considered the contentions raised by you in your above said appeal vis-a-vis facts of the case and other material placed on record, have arrived at the following conclusion:-
(a) That you were appointed as Fire Engine Driver on 07 Jun 2017 at 24 Equipment Depot and had submitted driving license with license bearing now new number UP/70/2012/00035012. Your appointment was provisional and subject to verification of Educational Qualifications, Antecedents and other certificates from appropriate authorities/agencies to prove your eligibility.
(b) That, upon investigation and verification, it was revealed that you had indeed submitted forged/false documents of date of birth and driving license to secure the Government employment thereby using unfair means.
(c) That, it is evident from the report of the investigation agency 14 Provost & Security Unit, that you obtained Government employment by bringing a false police verification report showing no criminal record, in spite of well knowing the fact that three criminal cases were pending against you at OP Sallahpur, PS Puramufti u/s 504 of IPC (Insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 of IPC (criminal intimidation). 427 of IPC (punishment for office related to damages more than Rs.50/-) and u/s 3 & 4 of UP Control of Goonda Act (Externment of Goondas from any area and permission to return to that areas as specified by District Magistrate.)
(d) That, as per provisions of Dopt OM No.11012/7/91-Estt (A) dated 19 May 1993, "wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of Recruitment Rules, etc for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service. If he probationer of a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services should be terminated. The ibid OM prescribed that penalty of termination, removal or dismissal should only be imposed in such cases, keeping in view the status of the concerned Govt. Servant.
(c) That, as per para 10 of your appointment letter 24 ED/625/1/PC dated 07 June 2017, your appointment was provisional, subject to verification of documents submitted by you.
(f) In compliance of the Dop&T instruction dated 19 May 1993, Air Officer Commanding, 24 Equipment Depot, rightly terminated your service with effect from 05 March 2018 vide order 24 ED/625/1/PC dated 01 March 2018.
9. AND WHEREAS, the termination of service in your case was a 'Termination Simpliciter' based on instructions as stipulated in the terms & conditions of your appointment order dated 07 June 2017, and accordingly, the discharge was not punitive, meriting an Inquiry. This position has been upheld by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. AND WHEREAS, alter considering the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the termination order dated 01 March 2018 passed by the Appointing Authority and accordingly, the request of setting aside the termination order cannot be acceded to.
11. NOW THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid considerations, your appeal dated 12 March 2018 for reinstatement is hereby rejected being devoid of merit.
Signed at headquarters Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force on this the third day of January, 2019.
(GS Sandhu) Air Vice Marshal Senior Administrative Air Staff Officer"
9. Based on the above observation, finally the Tribunal has dismissed the original application.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized the arguments mainly on the ground that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has not submitted any forged/fake document and only based on the complaint made by third party, the respondents without giving opportunity to establish his case straightway based on the alleged inquiry report, has passed the impugned order, terminating the services of the petitioner on 1.3.2018. It is further contended that the petitioner has only submitted driving license bearing no. UP 6420110001512 along with the application, which was issued by R.T.O. Sonebhadra. The respondents manipulated the record and indicted some other driving license and based on the said driving license, they have conducted the inquiry. The respondents have not considered the legal notice/reply dated 17.10.2017 submitted by the petitioner while passing the termination order dated 1.3.2018, even the appeal filed by the petitioner has also not considered in perspective manner, hence, the same should be set aside.
11. In reply to the said averments, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant/petitioner was appointed as Fire Engine Driver vide order dated 7.06.2017 with certain conditions. The extract of the same, are as follows:
"....... You will be on probation for period of two years from the date of appointment. In case your performance conduct is not found to be satisfactory. Your service will be liable to be terminated at any time during or at the end of period of probation (including extended period of any) without any notice or pay in lieu.
The appointment is provisional and is subject to verification of Educational Qualification and other certificates by the concerned unit from the appropriate authorities......"
12. So, the very appointment letter issued to the petitioner is a conditional one and he should be continued for probation for two years and if the services of the petitioner is not found satisfactory, it will be liable to be terminated at any time during or at the end of period of probation. Further as per the said condition, the appointment is provisional one and subject to verification of educational qualification and other certificates by the concerned unit from the appropriate authorities. In view of the stipulation of the said conditions in the appointment letter, it is the duty of the respondents to verify the documents, which was filed by the petitioner and also the character verification has to be done. The respondents have followed the procedure contemplated in the memorandum issued by the DoP&T dated 19.5.1993. The respondents have conducted the inquiry not only with regard to the complaint made by the third party but also as per the conditions stipulated in the appointment letter and on verification of the certificates, it was found that there are discrepancies in the driving license and other aspects. Hence, the authority has submitted the report on 24.8.2017 with the following lapses:
"4. The following position emerges from the ibid inquiry report:
(a) As per High School Certificate submitted by Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey during the recruitment, his Date of Birth is 10 Feburary 1995. However, the candidate is a son of civilian MTD Shri NP Dubey, posted at 24 ED, AF. The Date of Birth in r/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey, as recorded in the service record of his father is 10 Sep 1982.
(b) In the year 1985, Shri NP Dubey had applied for change in Date of Birth of his son from 10 Jun 1981 to 10 Sep 1982 by producing a certificate issued by Gram Pradhan.
(c) Shri NP Dubey had availed special casual leave for 7days from 31 Dec 1985 to 06 Jan 1986, as his wife had undergone family planning operation.
(d) Shri NP Dubey availed the benefit of LTC for his son (Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey) in the year 1993, wherein he had mentioned DoB i/r/o his son as 10 Sep 1982.
(e) In some other official documents Shri NP Dubey has mentioned DOB i/r/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey as 10 Sep 1982.
(f) Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey had studied at KV, Manauri and he dropped out from Class IX in the year 1996. This fact has been confirmed by school authorities during inquiry.
(g) The selected candidate has mentioned his marital status as 'Unmarried' during the selection process but during course of investigation, it was found that he is married and has a daughter, studying in Class II at KV, Manauri.
(h) Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey has submitted a police verification certificate with no criminal record against him. However during verification process, it was found that there are three separate criminal cases pending against him at OP Sallahpur, PS Paramufti u/s 504, 506, 427 of IPC and u/s ¾ of UP Control of Goondas Act. These cases were registered in the year 2012/13.
(i) During course of inquiry, Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey misbehaved and also threatened the P&S(U) officer and staff of dire consequences in office premises, if they continue with the investigation.
5. It appears from the above facts that Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Fire Engine Driver, 24 ED, AF has suppressed his actual Date of Birth in order to secure employment of Fire Engine Driver at 24 ED, AF. At the same time, he suppressed the information regarding criminal cases pending against at the time of selection. The Govt. Servant also misbehaved with the inquiry team in the office premises."
13. Based on the said report, as per the directions issued by the Headquarters Maintenance Command vide letter dated 15.2.2018, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner and based on the reply and following the provisions of memorandum dated 19.5.1993, the respondents have issued the termination order.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that when there is specific assertion made in the counter affidavit and also placing the license which was filed along with the original application, but the petitioner has not denied the same by filing rejoinder affidavit, that itself shows that he has accepted the said contention. Now, without filing reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to raise additional grounds that he has filed some other driving license and requested for dismissal of the writ petition.
15. We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the record and the impugned order, it clearly establishes that the appointment of the petitioner is a conditional one and his services are continuing as a probationer. So in view of any discrepancy or any adverse remark in character verification, the respondents ought have to take appropriate action as per the condition imposed in the appointment letter. Here, in the instant case, as stated in the counter affidavit and the same is recorded in the impugned order that the driving license no. 7012035012 submitted by the petitioner established that it is a forged one and further if the driving license no. UP 6420110001512 is taken into consideration, the date of birth recorded in the said driving license, would not come under consideration for appointment.
16. Apart from the above, though specific assertions made by the respondents in the counter affidavit and the documents were also filed along with application form before the Tribunal, the petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder affidavit by denying the abovesaid fact, which clearly establishes that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim before the Tribunal with regard to documents filed along with the application form.
17. On verification of the record and also the assertions made in the counter affidavit, it also clearly indicates that there were several cases registered against the petitioner apart from Goonda Act, but the same has not been refuted by the petitioner. A perusal of the conditions of the appointment letter, discloses that the appointment is a provisional one and subject to verification of the certificates from the concerned authority. So it means that on verification of the documents and also the character, it clearly established that by playing fraud, by submitting fake documents and also not revealing the criminal cases, which are pending against the petitioner. Even in the writ petition, he has not denied about the pendency of such criminal cases that shows the impugned termination order passed by the respondents dated 1.3.2018 are in conformity with the conditions in the appointment letter.
18. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned herein.
19. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 07.02.2024 Noman