Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Ram Kishan Khoiwal vs Cotton Corporation Of India Limited. & 3 on 11 December, 2017

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                    C/SCA/16117/2016                                                 ORDER




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16117 of 2016

         ================================================================
                        RAM KISHAN KHOIWAL....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
              COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED. & 3....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR MEHUL M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4
         ================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                                          Date : 11/12/2017
                                            ORAL ORDER

1. Heard   learned  Advocate   Mr.   D.G.Shukla   for   the   petitioner   and  Mr.Mehul Mehta for the respondent­Corporation.

2. The   petitioner   was   appointed   on   the   post   of   Junior   Cotton  Purchasers, he was on probation. According to the respondents it was  detected that during the process of verification of the certificates of the  petitioner that he had mentioned wrong experience and that his lack of  experience rendered him ineligible to continue on the post. Show Cause  Notice dated 01.01.2016 was received stating inter­alia as under:

"Subsequently   during   the   process   of   verification   of   experience,  it  has  been  found  from  M/s.  The  Himmatnagar   Co­op. Agri, Produce Proce & Sale Society Ltd, Himmatnagar,   Gujarat which has stated that you were working as trainee.   No salary was given to you. No evidence provided by the firm   which  could establish that  you were working with the firm.   The working as trainee can not be counted as previous work   experience and hence it is unreliable and not convincing. You   had   mentioned   in   your   online   application   that   you   were   getting   salary   of   Rs.96000  but   the   firm   in   verification  form   stated   that   you   were   not   paid   any   salary.   Further   with   Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 12 00:58:28 IST 2017 C/SCA/16117/2016 ORDER respect  to  M/s.  GRS  Enterprise  you have  not  attached  any   relevant documents and you have only 10 months experience   whereas as per the requirement the candidate must have at   least one year of experience. Therefore it has become evident   that the certificate obtained by you and submitted alongwith   the application was false. In as much as you have secured   employment  by submitting the false experience  certificate  in   the   Cotton   Corporation   of   India   which   is   a   Government   of   India   undertaking,   your   action   amount   to   securing   employment by fraudulent means."

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order is  stigmatic inasmuch as the petitioner was accused of submitting false  information   and   that   the   order   of   termination   was   passed   without  holding any inquiry. The decision of the Apex Court in Dipti Prakash   Banerjee   vs.   Satyendra   Nath   Bose   Nationaol   Centre   for   Basic   Sciences reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 was pressed into service.

4. Learned advocate for the respondent­Corporation submitted that  the   inquiry   was   undertaken   about   experience   qualification   of   the  petitioner   and   the   internal   inquiry   report   was   also   submitted.   He  further   submitted   that   under   The   Cotton   Corporation   of   India   Ltd.,  Employees Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1975, as per Rule 5(iv),  one   of   the   misconduct   stipulated   is   furnishing   false   information  regarding   name,   age,   father's   name,   qualification   etc,   at   the   time   of  employment or during the course of employment.

5. In   view   of   the   above   rival   submissions   the   moot   question   is  whether the allegation of misconduct is the foundation of the order of  termination or it was merely a motive.

 

6. Therefore,  Rule  returnable   on   10.04.2018.   Learned   Advocate  Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 12 00:58:28 IST 2017 C/SCA/16117/2016 ORDER Mr.Mehul Mehta waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent­ Corporation.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) SINDHU NAIR Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 12 00:58:28 IST 2017