Gujarat High Court
Ram Kishan Khoiwal vs Cotton Corporation Of India Limited on 27 February, 2023
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1470 of 2018
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16117 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RAM KISHAN KHOIWAL
Versus
COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL M MEHTA(3416) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/02/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) Page 1 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023
1. The appellant - original petitioner has filed present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16117 of 2016 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the original petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner - appellant herein that the respondent - Corporation issued public advertisement in the newspaper for the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing).
Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant submitted online application form for the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser. It is stated that after following procedure, the appellant was selected and issued appointment letter dated 03.03.2015 to join the Corporation as a Junior Cotton Purchaser. It is stated that thereafter, respondent - Corporation issued show-cause notice dated 01.01.2016 to the petitioner - appellant herein alleging that while submitting an application form, he did not disclose correct facts and false information was supplied to the Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 respondent - Corporation. It is stated in the show-cause notice that the certificate of experience supplied by the petitioner was false and it was not found to be in conformity with the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. It is alleged in the show- cause notice that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct by indulging in fraudulent means to secure employment in the Corporation and thereby, he himself has rendered liable for summary termination of services from the Corporation. The petitioner was therefore asked to send his reply / explanation. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the respondent - Corporation in which he had pointed out the correct facts and stated that he had provided the correct information while submitting his application form and the experience certificate. It is, therefore, urged for withdrawal of the show- cause notice. It is further stated that thereafter, the respondent - Corporation passed the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by observing that the petitioner has furnished false experience certificate for securing employment in CCI and therefore his Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 employment in the Corporation has become ab initio void and hence, the service of the petitioner is terminated. 2.2 The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the respondent - Corporation, however, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.04.2016 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review application which came to be rejected by the Chairman - Cum - Managing Director vide order dated 19.07.2016 and hence, the petitioner preferred the captioned petition before this Court. It is stated that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
3. Heard Mr.Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr.Mehul Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
4. Mr.Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has referred to the advertisement issued by the Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 respondent - Corporation inviting application for the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that as per the said advertisement, the qualification and experience for the said post were specifically stated in the advertisement itself. It is pointed out from the advertisement that the concerned candidates should provide post qualification experience of minimum one year of dealing in any Agriculture Commodities in organization / enterprise. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification and he was also having requisite qualification experience of minimum one year of dealing in any Agriculture Commodities in reputed organization and, therefore, the petitioner supplied necessary information in the application form itself and the experience certificates were also annexed with the application form. Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the experience certificate issued by Himmatnagar Cooperative Agriculture Produce Processing and Sale Society Limited and has submitted that in the said certificate, it is stated that the petitioner was working as Supervisor from 01.11.2010 to 30.05.2013 and the petitioner Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 successfully managed all roles of cotton procurement activities such as purchase, selection grading, processing, marketing, billing, storage and delivery and the work done by him during such period is found satisfactory. Learned advocate for the appellant, at this stage, has referred to the statement given by the concerned office bearer of the aforesaid society on 19.10.2015. Learned advocate for the appellant has also referred to the affidavit filed by Shaileshbhai Amrutbhai Patel, who issued the said certificate. It is pointed out by the learned advocate that the said affidavit is filed by the aforesaid person as per the interim order dated 04.10.2017 passed during the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge. While referring to the aforesaid affidavit and the statement, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that from the affidavit filed by the said person, it is revealed that in fact, the petitioner had worked with the aforesaid society for a particular period and, therefore, the petitioner was having requisite experience as per the advertisement issued by the respondent - Corporation. 4.1 Mr.Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the respondent - Corporation, while Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 passing the order of termination, has recorded findings that the petitioner has furnished false experience certificate for securing employment in CCI and, therefore, his employment in the Corporation has become ab initio void. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent - Corporation is stigmatic order and, therefore, the respondent - Corporation was required to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, without holding full-fledged departmental inquiry, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order of termination. Learned advocate for the appellant has, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Jude be quashed and set aside.
4.2 Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Yadav Vs. M. A. Industries Limited reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259. Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 Supreme Court in paragraphs no.11 to 16 of the said decision. Learned advocate for the appellant has, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside and this Court may issue appropriate direction to the respondent - Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service after quashing and setting aside the order of termination and direct the Corporation to grant all the benefits to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Corporation has opposed this appeal. Learned advocate for the respondent has referred to the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition filed by the appellant - petitioner and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5.1 Mr.Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has further submitted that Clause 14 of the advertisement itself provides that if the information furnished by the candidate in any Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 part of online application is found to be false or incomplete, the candidature / appointment of the candidate can be revoked / terminated at any stage of recruitment process or after recruitment or joining. Learned advocate for the respondent has thereafter referred to Clause 22 and 23 of the said advertisement. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner provided wrong information while submitting application form by stating that he was getting Rs.96,000/- by way of salary. At this stage, learned advocate for the respondent has referred to the certificate issued by the concerned society in favour of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner was working as Supervisor in the said Society for a particular period. The said certificate is produced at page No.32 of the compilation.
5.2 At this stage, learned advocate for the respondent has referred to the statement dated 19.10.2015 given by Shaileshbhai Amrutbhai Patel, the person who had issued certificate to the petitioner on behalf of the aforesaid society. Learned advocate for the respondent has also referred to the affidavit filed by the said person on 03.07.2017. It is submitted Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 that in the said affidavit and in the statement, the concerned person has stated that the petitioner was attending / visiting to the said society as a trainee. Learned advocate for the respondent has urged that in the certificate it is stated that the petitioner was working as Supervisor whereas in the affidavit the aforesaid person has stated that the petitioner was working as trainee and thus, wrong information was supplied to the respondent - Corporation. Learned advocate for the respondent has therefore submitted that when the respondent - Corporation has terminated the service of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, after issuing the show- cause notice and after considering the reply / explanation given by the petitioner, no error is committed by the respondent while passing the order of termination. Learned advocate for the respondent has therefore urged that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
5.3 Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent has at this stage referred to the order dated 22.11.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.6985 of 2021, the copy of which is produced on Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 record. It is submitted that in similar type of case of the Corporation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when there is fraudulent conduct on the part of the concerned candidate at the time of submitting information to the Corporation, it is not necessary to initiate departmental proceedings. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned advocate for the respondent has, therefore, urged that this appeal may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for both the sides. We have also perused the materials placed on record and the decisions upon which the reliance is placed. At the outset, we would like to refer relevant clause of the advertisement which provides the qualification and experience for the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser as under:-
"Qualification and Experience:
B.Sc (Agri.) from any recognized University with an aggregate of 50% marks, (45% marks in case of SC/ST/PH candidates). Post Qualification Experience of minimum one year of dealing in any Agriculture Commodities in reputed organization / enterprise.
OR Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 Science Graduate / Graduate in any science stream or any other science equivalent degree (where Science Background upto HSC level is a pre-requisite) from any recognized University with an aggregate of 50% marks (45% marks in case of SC / ST / PH candidates). Post Qualification Experience of minimum one year of dealing in any Agriculture Commodities in reputed organization / enterprise"
7. Clause 14 and 23 of the advertisement provide as under:-
"14. If the information furnished by the candidate in any part of online application is found to be false or incomplete or is not found to be in conformity with eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement, the candidature / appointment will be considered as revoked / terminated at any stage of recruitment process or after recruitment or joining, without any reference given to the candidate.
23. Candidates need not submit / send at any address, application printouts or any certificates or copies thereof at the time of ON-LINE application (No OFF-LINE / hard copy of application will be accepted). Their candidature will be considered on the basis of the information furnished in the ON-LINE application. If at any stage, it is found that any information furnished in the ON-LINE application is false / incorrect or if according to the Management / Selection Committee, the candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, his / her candidature / appointment will be cancelled / terminated."
8. From clause 14 of the advertisement, it is very clear that if the information furnished by the candidate in any part of online application is found false / incomplete, the candidature / appointment will be considered as revoked / terminated at any stage of recruitment process or after recruitment or joining without any reference given to the candidate. Further, it reveals Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 from clause 23 that the candidature / appointment will be considered on the basis of the information furnished in online application and if at any stage it is found that any information furnished in online application is false / incorrect or if according to the Management / Selection Committee, the candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria, his / her candidature / appointment will be cancelled or terminated.
9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid important clauses of the advertisement itself, the certificates and the information provided by the petitioner are required to be examined. While submitting the application form, the petitioner has stated as under:-
THE TEMP. 8000 8000 96000 Cotton Dealing 01-01- 30-05- 2 HIMATNAG SUPERV Industry in 2010 2013 Years AR CO-OP. ISOR Cotton 6 AGRI. Month PRODUCE s PROCE & SALE SOCIETY
10. Further, the appellant - petitioner produced certificate issued by the Himmatnagar Cooperative Agriculture Produce Processing and Sale Society Limited. The said certificate provides Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 as under:
"This is to certify that Mr.Ramkishan Khoiwal, Address Near Chamna Bawri, Sardar Bazar, Shahpura, Bhyilwara - 311 404 was working as Supervisor from the year 01-11-2010 to 30-05-2013. He successfully manages all roles of cotton procurement activities, such as purchase, selection grading, processing, marketing, billing, storage and delivery. The work done by him during the above period is found satisfactory."
11. In the statement at page No.53 as well as in the affidavit at page No.63, said person has, on the contrary, stated that the petitioner was attending the said society by way of trainee and no salary was paid to him.
12. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has submitted wrong information to the respondent - Corporation while submitting the application form that he was getting Rs.96,000/- by way of salary and he was working as Supervisor in the aforesaid society. On the contrary, from the aforesaid affidavit filed by the concerned authorized signatory, it is clear that the petitioner was working as trainee and was not getting any salary.
13. At this stage, once again this Court would like to refer Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023 C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 relevant Clauses 14 and 23 of the advertisement. It is specific clause of the advertisement that if false or incomplete information is supplied while submitting online application, then, the candidature / appointment is liable to be cancelled / terminated.
14. In the present case, after the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and the information supplied by the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation got information during inquiry that the information supplied by the petitioner was incorrect and the certificate of experience given by the petitioner is also not correct and, therefore, the show- cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner and he was asked to give his explanation and after considering the explanation / reply given by the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation passed the order of termination. In the order of termination itself, the respondent - Corporation has stated about the incorrect and false information and the certificate of experience supplied by the petitioner. The said order is not interfered with by the Appellate Authority as well as Review Authority.
Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023
C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023
15. We have perused the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has referred to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 263 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph no.12 as under:-
"12. The issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged..."
Further observed that :
"It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
16. In the case of The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Vignesh S. rendered in Civil Appeal No.6985 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:-
Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023
C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023 "In the present case, the advertisement had clearly indicated the eligibility condition which contemplated work experience of a specified duration. The inquiries conducted by the appellant revealed that the certificate issued in favour of the respondent was completely incorrect and false.
The basic condition of eligibility itself was thus not complied with and the invalidity went to the root of the matter. It is not a case of any conduct on part of the employee after he was appointed, but the invalidity was pertaining to the very entitlement and candidature of the respondent.
It is not even suggested that the respondent was having any documentary evidence to support his case that he had the requisite work experience for more than a year. The documents could have been in the nature of credit of the amounts towards salary into his bank account, deductions made by the requisite authorities towards his provident fund dues or any such documents. None of those documents were even referred to in the response filed on behalf of the respondent.
The order of termination issued by the appellant thus could not be faulted.'
17. Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Yadav (supra), we are of the view that the facts of the said case are totally different to the facts of the present case. There is specific reference in the advertisement itself that if the wrong / false information is supplied while submitting online application form the candidature / appointment can be cancelled / terminated.
Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023
C/LPA/1470/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2023
18. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 03 20:34:41 IST 2023