Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K Rengaraj vs M/O Defence on 24 September, 2025
1 OA 1204/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01204/2018
Dated the 24th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty-Five
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE SHRI. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member(A)
K.Rengaraj
S/o T.Krishnan
No.1/374 A, 5th North Street, Tiruvallur Salai,
Poolankudi Colony Trichirapalli 25. .......Applicant.
By Advocate M/s. V.Vijay Shankar
-Vs-
1. The Union of India
rep by its Director General of Ordnance Factories,
Ordnance Factory Board, 10 A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkatta.
2. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory
Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli 620 016.
3. The Work Manager
Vigilance Section, Ministry of Defence,
Ordnance Factory Tiruchirapalli,
Tiruchirapalli 620 016. ........Respondents.
By Advocate Mr. M.Kishore Kumar SPC
2 OA 1204/2018
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
"To call for the records of the 2nd respondent in its No.7930/VIG/395/2015 dated 29.6.2017 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in its No.18584(890)/Per/Disc. dated 6.12.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential and attendant benefits including backwages and pass such other order or orders as maybe deemed fit and thus render justice. "
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
2.1 The Applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe viz, Kattunaicken Community. Based on a community certificate issued to him on 18.08.1993 by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Thenkasi, the Applicant was appointed as Medical Assistant in the respondent factory in the year 1996. The applicant obtained another community certificate dated 30.09.1999 issued by the PA (General) to District Collector and Addl. District Magistrate (in the rank of RDO) certifying the applicant's community.
2.2 While so, the RDO, Thenkasi submitted a report to the respondents stating that the community certificate dated 18.08.1993 produced by the applicant was not issued from their office without holding any enquiry.
The applicant approached the Hon. High Court in WP No.9447/2005 and by order dated 23.11.2006, the Hon. High Court remitted the matter to the RDO to conduct fresh enquiry with reasonable opportunity to the applicant. The applicant participated in the enquiry and the RDO sent the enquiry report to the respondents without marking a copy of the 3 OA 1204/2018 applicant. Based on the said report of the RDO, a chargememo dated 07.10.2015 was issued by respondents alleging that applicant had submitted a fake community certificate of the year 1993. 2.3 The applicant filed OA 1736/2015 before this Tribunal challenging the chargememo. The OA has been admitted and is pending. Meanwhile without holding proper and full fledged enquiry and without letting in oral and documentary evidences and without examining witnesses the respondent hastily concluded the enquiry. On 29.6.2017, the impugned order of removal from service was imposed on the applicant. The Applicant filed OA 1032/2017 before this Tribunal. On 07.07.2017, final order was passed by the Tribunal holding that since the remedy of appeal was available, the applicant must exhaust the same before approaching the Tribunal.
2.4 On 16.07.2017, the applicant submitted his appeal to the Appellate Authority viz., the 1st respondent. In the appeal, the applicant has highlighted how the order of dismissal was issued in a hasty manner and as to how the enquiry was held in a perfunctory manner without giving him adequate opportunity to establish his innocence. The applicant had also requested for personal hearing by the Appellate Authority viz., the 1st respondent. However, by the impugned order dated 6.12.2017, the Appellate Authority ( 1st respondent) has dismissed the appeal without discussing or considering in depth the detailed factual and legal submissions made by the applicant. Further the opportunity of personal hearing was not also afforded to him. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA challenging the impugned orders. 4 OA 1204/2018
3. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the OA except those which are admitted on facts.
3.1 The respondents submitted the after the Hon. High Court remitting the matter to the RDO for fresh enquiry in in WP No. 9447 of 2005, the applicant again filed a Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No. 01 of 2007 in WP (MD) No. 9447 of 2005 requesting the Hon'ble High Court to modify the order dated 23.11.2006 to the effect that instead of directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry, direct the committee constituted as per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil reported in AIR, 1995 SC 94 to conduct an enquiry. However, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2007 dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly the RDO, Tenkasi issued notices dated 19.12.2006 and 20.03.2007 directing the applicant to attend the enquiry. Meanwhile, the applicant again filed an appeal in WA 214 of 2007 & MP (MD) No. 02 of 2007 in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench contending that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the authority to verify the authenticity of the certificates and it is only the committee constituted as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can verify the authenticity of the certificates. However, Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 02.07.2007 dismissed the Writ Appeal. Thus, it can be seen that the applicant during the process of inquiry by RDO, Tenkasi kept evading his appearance in personal hearings given to him until he finally attended it on 14.07.2008. After giving personal hearing to the applicant, the RDO had given its report dated . 07.2008 that the caste certificate of the applicant, Shri K. Rengaraj is 5 OA 1204/2018 fake. In case, the applicant had any deferment with the findings of RDO, Tenkasi report dated 07.2008, he should have raised it with the appropriate State authorities. Though the report of the RDO, Tenkasi came in 2008, the applicant neither intimated this department on his deferment on the findings of the RDO nor did he take up the issue with other appropriate authorities. Hence, his contentions on the RDO report are not worth consideration.
3.2 Based on the report dated 07.2008 of the RDO Tenkasi, a fresh charge memorandum dated 07.10.2015 was issued to the applicant under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the charges of securing appointment by submitting a fake ST certificate bearing no. 2455659 dated 18.081.993 said to be issued by the RDO, Tenkasi, who disowned it vide report dated .07.2008. The charge in the charge memorandum dated 07.10.2015 is that the applicant, Shri K. Rengaraj had resorted to forgery and submitted a fake community certificate to secure appointment in this factory. His contentions that the very initiation of departmental proceedings was without jurisdiction as his community certificate was yet to be cancelled and was not referred to the proper scrutiny committee, is baseless, as upon disowning of the certificate by the issuing authority, the certificate itself becomes invalid and hence the question of its cancellation does not arise. Further the fact whether the applicant belongs to a reserved caste or otherwise is not challenged in the charge memorandum and hence the findings of the State Level Scrutiny Committee has no bearing on the departmental action initiated against him in the charge memorandum dated 07.10.2015.
6 OA 1204/20183.3 The respondents further submitted that the applicant, instead of participating in the enquiry proceedings and proving his case, resorted to file OA1736/2017 before the Tribunal and since there was no interim directions granted by the Tribunal in respect of the enquiry proceedings, the department proceeded with the same by affording reasonable opportunities to the applicant to defend his case and finally passed the impugned order of Removal from Service on 29.06.2017. The said OA 1736/2015 is not pending as stated by the applicant but was dismissed by the Tribunal as infructuous, vide order dated 10.09.2018. 3.4 The respondents further submitted that the averments made by the applicant regarding the submission made by him to the Inquiry Officer are all false and baseless. On the first date of hearing in the court of inquiry proceedings held on 29.07.2016, the applicant replied to the Inquiry Officer that he has received the charge memorandum dated 07.10.2015 and has understood and accepts the charges. Despite the unambiguous acceptance of charges in the first hearing, the inquiry officer gave him time to submit any documents to prove his innocence. In the 2nd hearing on 04.08.2016, the applicant, Shri K. Rengaraj submitted to the Inquiry Officer that he doesn't have documents/evidence to submit and that in 1998 his father had missed the community certificate dated 18.08.1993 and that he had gone to the RDO, Tenkasi for a 2 nd certificate, however, they replied that his records are not available there and so he had gone to Chennai for 2nd certificate. He also stated that originally he belongs to Katunayakkan community but he was not aware that the community certificate submitted at the time of his appointment was fake and not genuine as it was got by his father from RDO, Tenkasi and he requested 7 OA 1204/2018 to consider his 2nd community certificate from Chennai, which was original and genuine.
3.5 The respondents contended that it is thus evident that the applicant, Shri K. Rengaraj had secured appointment based on the Community Certificate dated 18.08.1993, which however he claims to have lost and got another community certificate from Chennai in 1999. Whereas, in case of a loss of a certificate, the individual is supposed to get a duplicate copy of the caste certificate from the issuing authority, i.e. RDO Tenkasi in this case and not a new caste certificate from a new authority. Holding a new certificate from a new authority at a later date does not mitigate him of the charge that he was not in possession of a valid caste certificate and had submitted a fake certificate at the time of his appointment. In this instant case, the community of the applicant Shri K. Rengaraj has not been questioned in the charge memorandum. The charge in the charge memorandum is that he had secured appointment at OFT by submitting false / fake ST certificate. Thus, the statements of the applicant are not worth consideration.
3.6 The respondents further submitted that in consonance with the directions of Hon'ble CAT, Chennai in its order dated 07.07.2017 in OA No. 1032 of 2017 filed by the applicant, the Appellate Authority after considering the representation dated 16.07.2017 of the Applicant, vide its order dated 06.12.2017 gave a well- reasoned speaking order rejecting the appeal of the applicant, being devoid of merit. Further in accordance with the DOPT instructions on personal hearing, the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal of the applicant has categorically addressed 8 OA 1204/2018 each and every point put forth by the applicant and has arrived at the conclusion that there appears no reason to afford the applicant a personal hearing in the matter. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
5. The main grounds cited by the applicant for the relief among others are as under:-
(i) That neither the applicant was allowed to adduce an evidence nor he was allowed to examine the witness and the authorities has assumed his statement to be an admission and concluded the disciplinary proceedings on misconception.
(ii) The RDO who is the competent authority for issue of community certificate was not examined and the applicant was not given opportunity of cross-examining the RDO while the inquiry authority relied on the mere statement from the RDO's office.
(iii) The applicant belongs to the Kattu Nayakkan Community which stands established by the subsequent community certificate issued by another competent authority in 1999 which is still valid
(iv) The genuineness of the community certificate has been decided by the disciplinary authority in stead of the designated Caste Scrutiny Committee.9 OA 1204/2018
6. A perusal of the inquiry report and the proceedings thereof shows that on 29.07.2016, the applicant has signed the disciplinary proceedings sheet which states that "DGS was given opportunity for cross- examination but since DGS has accepted charges, he mentioned that cross-examination is not required". Similarly, on the next date of hearing, i.e., on 04.08.2016, the proceedings sheet states that "DGS was given opportunity to produce evidences against the charges".
7. Since the above statement have been duly signed by the IO, PO and the DGS, who is the applicant in the OA, it is clear that he has been given due opportunities to cross-examination during the inquiry process. It is noted that the applicant secured the job by virtue of the caste certificate bearing No.2455659 dated 18.08.1993 of the RDO, Tenkasi and on verification of the caste certificate, the same authority, i.e., the RDO Tenkasi, vide his letter dated 13.07.2005 denied to have issued any such certificate. The same is extracted below:-
"N.K.A.2/7845/05 Dated 13.07.2005 Sir, Sub: Caste Certificate Verification - Tenkasi District -Krishnapuram Village - Shri Rengaraj S/o Krishnan - Hindu Kattu Nayakkan Caste Verification - Reg.
Ref: Your letter No.78635/LB Dated 09.07.2005 In the letter referred above, a photocopy of the ST certificate bearing No.2455659 dated 18.08.1993 in respect of Shri K.Rengaraj S/o Shri Krishnan Thenkasi District, Krishnapuram Village belonging to Hindu Kattu Nayakkan Community was received for verification. It is revealed that this certificate has not been issued from this office and the 10 OA 1204/2018 certificate is a forged one. As this certificate is forged, criminal action may taken against the individual and the status of the case may be intimated to this office.
-sd-
Revenue Divisional Officer Thenkasi Copy to : District Collector -Tirunelveli Dt. - for kind submission please."
8. Subsequent to the communication dated 13.07.2005 of the RDO Tenkasi , the applicant filed a Writ Petition bearing WP No.9447/2005 in the High Court of Madras. In this the applicant was allowed an injunction for period of three weeks and later a final order was issued on 23.11.2006, wherein the RDO/Tenkasi was directed to enquire de novo by giving an opportunity to the applicant and a fresh report was asked to be submitted within eight weeks. The applicant further filed an appeal in the High Court vide No.WA 214/2007 citing Madhuri Patil judgment, which was dismissed by the High Court on 02.07.2007. Thereafter, notice was sent by the RDO, Tenkasi to the applicant to appear on 25.02.2008, 27.03.2008, 28.04.2008, 02.06.2008 and 14.07.2008 and at last the applicant joined for enquiry on 14.07.08. Thus, the applicant has been given sufficient time and opportunity to be heard as directed by the Hon'ble High Court order dated 23.11.2006. On conduction of detail enquiry the RDO Tenkasi concluded that the certificate No. 2455659 dated 18.08.1993 submitted by the applicant is not issued by them and therefore not genuine. In view of this, the grounds taken by the applicant is not sustainable.
11 OA 1204/2018
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited various judgments in their favour. In the case cited by the applicant S.P.Sakthi Devi Vs. The Collector of Salem in WP No.1235/1983 dated 01.08.1984, the Hon. Madras High Court has stated that the fourth respondent cannot decide the genuineness of a certificate issued by the 18 th Metropolitan Magistrate Madras who is a competent authority to issue such a certificate. Similarly, in OA 218/2013, this Tribunal has held that the disciplinary authority cannot reject the community certificate of Tahsildar on the ground that he had not followed the proper procedure while issuing the certificate. Similarly, in the case of WP No.14477/2014 dated 05.06.2014, the Hon. Madras High Court has also held that the department is not the competent authority to decide the community status of the applicant. However, in all the cases cited above, the competent authority to issue the caste certificate has confirmed the issuance of the caste certificate from their office but the disciplinary authority or the departments have concluded that the certificate is not genuine. Whereas, in the present case, it is a case where the competent authority, i.e., the RDO Tenkasi has categorically disowned and stated that the certificate has not been issued by them. So in such a case, the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable in the present case.
10. Reference was also made to the Madhuri Patil's judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, it is observed that the issue has been raised by the applicant which was considered by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, while passing order dated 31.10.2007 dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition and directing RDO to 12 OA 1204/2018 conduct de novo inquiry instead of directing the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Since the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court, we do not find any reason to agree to the contention of the applicant, especially when the RDO, Tenkasi disowns the certificate purportedly issued by him.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant cited OA 448/2002, of this Tribunal, wherein the District Collector Salem stated that the community certificate is not genuine. The learned counsel also argued that the RDO office routinely states that such a certificate has not been issued by them if they are not able to verify the records. However, we notice that in the present case, the RDO has categorically reiterated that they have not issued the community certificate to the applicant after conducting a detail inquiry second time as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant rests his arguments on the second community certificate No.2643814 dated 30.09.1999 issued by the Personal Assistant of the District Collector, Chennai and the Addl. District Magistrate which he say is still valid. However, the genuineness of caste certificate issued on a subsequent date by a different authority is not under challenge in the present case.
13. From the records, it is clear that the applicant submitted a forged community certificate which is not acceptable to the appointing authority with regard to his community. In other words, a forged document has been submitted by the applicant to secure a job. The Hon. Supreme Court of India in CA No.2911/2022 dated 21.04.2022 in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Rajendra D.Harmalkar has stated that 13 OA 1204/2018 "Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. 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 mensrea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service."
14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (M.Swaminathan)
Member(A) Member(J)
MT 24.09.2025