Jharkhand High Court
Satish Chand Gupta vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd.& on 15 January, 2010
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1349 of 2005
Satish Chandra Gupta ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
2. Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
3. Chairman, Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioner: Mr. Baban Lal, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
---
CAV ORDER
---
Reserved on: 12.01.2010 Pronounced on: 15.01.2010
---
10. 15.01.2010Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 31.07.2004 (Annexure- 39) passed by the Respondent No. 2, Managing Director and the order dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure- 41) passed by the Respondent No. 3, Chairman (SAIL), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated.
2. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief is as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Management Trainee (Administration) under the Respondent No. 1. After having rendered continuous service for more than fifteen and half years, he was served with the chargesheet, on the charge that in his original application for recruitment as Management Trainee, he had furnished a false information, claiming himself to belong to the scheduled caste category and on such misrepresentation, had succeeded in gaining his appointment in the reserved category.
A departmental proceeding was initiated, which was challenged by the petitioner, vide a writ application filed by him before this Court. The writ application was disposed of by a Single Bench giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the oder of the Single Judge, but subsequently, withdrew the appeal.
Later, at the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of the charge. After offering him opportunity to explain, as to why he should not be punished with termination of service and after receiving his explanations, the impugned order of termination of service, was passed. Against the impugned order of the Managing Director, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No. 3, the Chairman (SAIL), who, vide the impugned order (Annexure- 41), dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
3. Learned senior counsel, Shri Baban Lal, appearing for the petitioner, has assailed both the impugned orders on the following grounds:
(i) The impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary, illegal and perverse manner, without appreciating the petitioner's case in proper perspective.
(ii) Undisputedly, even though the petitioner had indicated in his application that he belongs to the scheduled caste category, he had also declared in his application that he belongs to the 'TELI' community and had also annexed the caste certificate issued to him by the competent authority of the State Government. In the letter issued by the respondents, by which the petitioner was called upon to appear at the interview, it was stipulated that the result of the interview would be subject to the verification of the caste certificate. The petitioner had faced the interview and later, he was given his appointment letter, in which also it was declared that his joining on the post, pursuant to the appointment letter, would be subject to the verification of his caste certificate. The petitioner was allowed to join thereafter and to continue to discharge his duties on the post offered to him for more than fifteen and half years.
4. Learned counsel explains further that the petitioner cannot be accused of suppressing any material fact as because the petitioner had voluntarily declared the caste to which he belongs and had enclosed the relevant certificate along with his original application and it was for the respondent authorities to verify and check as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of any reservation in the light of the caste to which he belongs. Learned counsel argues that if the respondent authorities have failed to carry out their duty of verifying the caste certificate and the benefits, if any, which attach thereto , then they should also be charged with contributory ignorance/negligence. Learned counsel further adds that in any case, undisputedly the caste to which the petitioner belongs to, also enjoys reservation under Other Backward Caste category and since such reservation was applicable on the date when the impugned order was passed, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the same and taken an appropriate decision to adjust the petitioner in the OBC category, if not in the scheduled caste category.
Learned counsel adds further that in the entire transaction, the petitioner did not suppress any material fact nor made any representation since he was under the bonafide belief that the 'Teli' caste to which he belongs, enjoys the benefits of reservation under the scheduled caste category.
Learned counsel adds further that, had such impugned decision of the respondent been taken promptly at the very threshold of the petitioner's appointment , then the petitioner would have availed the benefits of his appointment elsewhere, particularly in the Indian Military Academy, where he had qualified and was selected for appointment and had to forgo his offer only because of the acceptance of his service under the respondents.
Learned counsel lastly argues that the impugned order is totally disproportionate to the charge and in any case, the decision to terminate his services could not have been taken against the petitioner after more than fifteen years of the date of his appointment. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel would refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54].
5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would argue that even as per the facts admitted by the petitioner, there was misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner in as much as, the petitioner had claimed himself to belong to the Scheduled Caste category and had obtained his appointment under the category reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, although the caste to which he belongs, does not fall within the category reserved for Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel argues further that the petitioner has apparently obtained his appointment by suppression of material facts and by misrepresentation. Such appointment being primarily illegal, is deemed to be void-abinitio and the petitioner cannot claim any right of the benefits of service pursuant to the appointment given to him. Learned counsel argues further that the plea that the respondents ought to have verified the caste certificate, is misconceived and misleading. No dispute was ever raised regarding the caste certificate produced by the petitioner. Rather, the dispute is in respect of the petitioner's claim that the caste to which he belongs, is approved as Scheduled Caste and the benefits of the reservation would apply to such category. Distinguishing the facts in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (Supra), learned counsel explains that the ratio decided in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (Supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case as because, the facts in that case suggest that the concerned applicant who had obtained his appointment, had not suppressed any material fact or had misrepresented facts with intent to gain his appointment.
6. As appearing from the rival submissions and from the pleadings of the parties, the facts which emerge undisputedly are, that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities for appointment of Management Trainees, the petitioner had submitted his application. The advertisement had declared the number of vacancies reserved for the various reserved categories. The petitioner though declaring himself to be the member of 'Teli' caste, had also declared that the caste to which he belongs, falls within the Scheduled Caste category. His application was considered on the basis of the statements made therein and eventually, he could obtain his appointment under the category reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.
7. The fact that the caste to which the petitioner belongs, has not been extended the privilege of the benefits under the Scheduled Caste category, came to light much later and upon such detection, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, after serving him with the charge. The petitioner was given opportunity to participate in the proceeding and to submit his defence. The Inquiring Officer, on conclusion of the inquiry, had recorded his findings that the charge against the petitioner was proved, though adding an observation that incorrect statement given by the petitioner in his application for appointment, was on account of bonafide innocence and not with any malafide intention. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the findings that the charge against the petitioner was proved, passed the impugned order of punishment by way of termination of the petitioner's service, though after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard against the proposed punishment.
8. It is apparent that the petitioner, while submitting his application, has sought for his appointment under the reserved category declaring that the caste to which he belongs, falls under the reserved Scheduled Caste category. This being a categorical declaration made by the petitioner in his application for appointment, it has to be presumed that such representation and declaration made by him, were correct to his knowledge, belief and information. The petitioner cannot claim that he had made such incorrect representation and declaration on a bonafide belief that the caste to which he belongs, falls within the Scheduled Caste category and enjoys the benefits of reservation for appointment. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit from the purported negligence on the part of the respondent authorities in verifying the certificate produced by the petitioner. There was nothing before the respondents to disbelieve the caste certificate which the petitioner had produced or to suspect that the declaration made by the petitioner in his application for appointment, was incorrect and false.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the ratio declared in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (Supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (Supra), the applicant had claimed himself to belong to the Scheduled Tribes Community on the basis of the notification issued by the concerned authorities of the State Government. It was later, that the Expert Committee on re-examination of the dispute raised, had concluded that the community to which the applicant had claimed himself to belong, did not fall within the Scheduled Tribes Community.
10. In the present case, on the other hand, there appears an apparent misrepresentation made by the petitioner in his original application pursuant to which, he could succeed in obtaining his appointment under the reserved category. But for such representation, he would not have been entitled for his appointment under the reserved category.
It also appears that the relief granted to the applicant in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave (Supra), was in exercise of the extraordinary powers reserved to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
11. The plea of the petitioner that the impugned order of termination of his service could not have been passed after 15 long years of petitioner's service, and that the punishment is highly disproportionate to the guilt, is also not tenable. The petitioner had obtained his appointment on the basis of misrepresentation of material facts. It is a settled law when an advantage is obtained by a person in violation of the Constitutional scheme, a constitutional fraud is committed. Therefore, the appointment granted to the petitioner is deemed to be an appointment illegally obtained by him and he cannot therefore take any benefit of his illegal appointment. Such appointment is deemed to be void abinitio and the respondents cannot be called upon to rectify or regularize the appointment at any later stage.
12. In the light of the above discussions, and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J) Manish/Ranjeet/A.F.R.