Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rajeev Narayan vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 17/2013
This, the 21st day of May, 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Rajeev Narayan, S/o Sri Jangjeet Singh Verma, aged about 50
years, R/o Village Nandpur, Post Dhatri, and District Firojabad
(Earlier in District Mainpuri) & presently residing at A-6 Ashok Vihar
Lucknow.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broad Casting New Delhi.
2. Prasar Bharti, (Broadcasting Corporation of India) through its
Chariman.
3. Director General All India Radio, Akashvani Bhawan New Delhi.
4. Assistant Director General (CR-1) All India Radio, Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
ORDER
PER HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"1. to quash the impugned orders bearing order no.
45014/4/2012-BA(P) dated 17.08.2012 passed by appellate authority and O.M. dated 4/87/2005-S1(B)/362 dated 03.05.2012, passed by disciplinary authority and a direction be issued to the opposite parties to retain the applicant in service with consequential benefits.
2. to issue, such other further relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the matter may kindly passed."
3. It is the case of the applicant that applicant passed the examination of Prasaran Karyakari Pariksha-1990 held by Page 1 of 5 Government of India, Staff Selection Commission and in pursuance of the same, applicant was appointed as Transmission Executive at Akashvani Bhopal in the year 1991.
Applicant was given the benefits of reservation on the basis of certificate of de-notified caste dated 25.06.1985 issued by Tahsildar Shikohabad and certificate dated 16.02.1986 issued in pursuance of certificate of de-notified caste and under the government scheme, applicant was given the reservation under schedule tribe quota.
A false complaint was made against the applicant and without any inquiry with respect to genuineness of complainant and complaint, applicant was issued chargesheet and after completion of inquiry, applicant was removed from service on 03.05.2012. Statutory departmental appeal also came to be dismissed.
Hence, this OA.
4. Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that the a complaint was received that applicant has submitted a false certificate declaring his caste belonging to Schedule Tribe category although applicant belongs to Lodh caste. The claim of the applicant was verified through the concerned District Magistrate who certified that the alleged ST Certificate of applicant was not issued by their office. Departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules were initiated against the applicant. After consideration of the facts, representations submitted by the applicant, the competent authority decided that applicant obtained Government job in ST quota on the basis of false certificate. Therefore, penalty of removal from service was imposed on applicant. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case as brought in the inquiry report, the order of disciplinary authority, the list of ST caste in Uttar Pradesh and the submissions made by the applicant in his appeal. . Hence, orders passed by competent authorities are in accordance with law.
5. Applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit reiterated the averments made in the Original application. Further stated that respondents are misleading the Tribunal by alleging that applicant has produced forged certificate of ST, whereas the applicant had never claimed Page 2 of 5 himself as member of ST caste, he claimed himself as member of de- notified caste, the facilities available to the ST are extended to the members of de-notified caste.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that principles of natural justice have not been followed during course of disciplinary proceedings. Opportunity of cross examination has not been afforded to the applicant, hence, impugned removal order dated 03.05.2012 ( Part of Annexure No.1) is bad in the eyes of law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that applicant got job on the basis of fake caste certificate. Inquiry was conducted as per rules. Impugned removal order is within contours of law. OA has no legs to stand.
8. In Union of India & Others vs. Subrata Nath reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad parameter within which the Hon'ble High Court or Tribunal can exercise their powers:-
"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;Page 3 of 5
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
9. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the facts of the case are being analyzed and evaluated.
10. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant made demand for cross examination of the Tahsildar Shikohabad for his false and wrong statement and concealment of de- notified caste but no opportunity was afforded for cross examination of Tehsildar Shikohabad to the applicant. The said fact has been narrated in Para 4.19 of the OA.
11. In Counter reply, it has been stated that on request of AIR, District Magistrate, Firozabad expressed the inability to send any person as witness before Inquiry Officer in view of the exigency of work.
Para 4.19 of counter reply runs as follows:
The contents of this para are not acceptable. The District Magistrate, Firozabad was requested on 08/07/2011 (Annexure-H) and 08/08/2011 (Annexure-I) to be present personally or any nominated officer in office of Inquiry Officer in Mathura to verify the certificate issued by him. After that Special Judicial Magistrate had also been requested on 25/8 / 2011 (Annexure-J) to be present before the Inquiry Officer for the same. But the letter had been returned with remarks that "प्राप्तकताा मर चुके हैं, अतः प्रेषक को वापिस"
(Annexure-K). On request of AIR, District Magistrate, Firozabad expressed the inability to send any person as witness before Inquiry Page 4 of 5 Officer in view of exigency of work. However, DM Office had confirmed, vide their letter dated 17/08/2011 (Annexure-L) that the letter dated 07/04/2010 (Annexure-B) issued by Tehsildar has been forwarded by his Office letter dated (26/8) / 2010 (Annexure-A) to AIR, Agra.
From the perusal of aforesaid para 4.19, it is manifest that Tehsildar, Shikohabad who has submitted the report with regard to fake caste certificate was not made available for cross examination during inquiry proceedings, thus, opportunity of effective hearing has not been provided to the applicant.
It is worth notice that applicant has been removed from service without providing him opportunity of cross examination from main witness i.e. Tehsildar, Shikohabad who submitted the report with regard to caste certificate filed by applicant.
12. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that impugned removal order as well as appellate order are vitiated by rules of Audi alteram partem and are liable to be quashed
13. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned removal order dated 03.05.2012 and appellate order dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure No. 1) are quashed.
Liberty is granted to respondents to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules. The said exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending M.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2024.05.22 16:06:39 +05'30' Page 5 of 5