Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
A Meenambal vs Department Of Posts on 27 September, 2024
1
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00490/2023
Order Reserved on: 12.9.2024
Date of Order: 27.09.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Ms.A.Meenambal
W/o.Sri.Saranathan K
Aged 60 years, Ex-MTS
Robertsonpet MDG - 563 113
Residing at No.1132
6th Cross Extension
'C' Block Pipe lane
Robertsonpet, K.G.F - 563 122 ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India
By Secretary
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001
2. Director of Postal Services
O/o Postmaster General
South Karnataka Region
Bengaluru-560 001
2
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Puttur Division, Puttur - 574 201
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Kolar Division, Kolar-563 101 ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for R 1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 for claiming the following reliefs:
" To quash the (a) Memo No.F/PTR/ADA/04/KLR/22-23 dated at Puttur the 24.01.2023, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A-8 and (b) Order No.SK/STA/9-
3/10/2023/I dated at Bengaluru - 560 001 the 01.08.2023, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure A10 and extend consequential benefits to the applicant accordingly and
(ii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The same is filed based on the grounds and legal provisions as explained in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(vi) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in the 3 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Department of Posts as GDS MP, Marikuppam SO Kolar Division on 1.10.1981. She was taken on duty after verifying her SSLC marks card and other documents. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of MTS after verifying the certificates produced by her in terms of the order dated 22.8.2013.
3. Thereafter, on receipt of a complaint from an unknown person that she had produced a fake SSLC marks card at the time of her appointment, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, a charge sheet was framed against her that she produced fake marks card and certificates and obtained the job vide a memo dated 10.11.2022.
4. The applicant asserts that in the inquiry, the complainant was not examined and some irrelevant documents were produced, the contents of which were not proved. However, the Inquiry officer has held that the charge was proved against the applicant. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of her removal from service by an order dated 24.10.2023.
4
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
5. The applicant retired on superannuation on 30.04.2023. The appeal filed by the applicant dated 15.03.2023 against the said order has been dismissed by the respondent No.2 by an order dated 1.8.2023. Hence, based on the grounds explained, the applicant requests to allow her Original Application and grant her reliefs as claimed.
6. On notice, the respondents have filed their detailed reply statement wherein they do not contest the basic facts of the case, but they vehemently argued that they had conducted the inquiry through due process of law, giving ample opportunity of hearing to the applicant and as per the rules and procedures the inquiry concluded and as per the inquiry report, based on available evidences, appropriate orders were passed and as it is a case of false and bogus certificate production, appropriate penalties were imposed. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the applicant and so the Original Application should be dismissed for being without merit.
7. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant, but through a Memo, the applicant has filed following rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in her favour.
5
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE "1. State of M.P v. Bani Singh and another [1990 (2) LLJ 529 para 4]
2. State of Punjab & Others v.
Chamanlal Goyal [(1995) (2) SLJ 126 (SC)] (paras 9,11 and 13)
3. State of Andhra Pradesh v.
N.Radhakrishnan [AIR 1998 SC 1833] (paras 19 and 20).
5. Mahadevan P.V. v. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board [2005(3) LLJ 527] (paras 5, 7 12 and 15) "
8. The case came up for final hearing on 12.9.2024. Shri.A.R.Holla was present for the applicant and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty was present for the respondents and both were heard.
9. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
10. Among the grounds for relief, let us take each of the sub paragraphs listed in paragraph 5 of the Original Application, one by one.
11. In paragraph 5(i), the applicant says that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant based on an anonymous complaint by a fictitious person, 'Abdul Kuduze Azees', 6 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE whose whereabouts were not known. The notice sent for him to attend the inquiry has not been served on him and he has not attended the inquiry. On the other hand, the complainant has not been examined in the inquiry. As such, there is no legally admissible evidence in support of the charge against the applicant. As such, the penalty imposed based on the findings of such an inquiry is liable to be set aside. As such, Annexure A8 and Annexure A10 are liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to make payment of consequential benefits to the applicant accordingly.
If we examined this ground in the context of the inquiry and the charges framed, the only charge framed against the applicant was as following and it is very clear in Annexure -1 of the Memorandum of Charges dated 10.11.2020 which was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the Competent Authority:
"ARTICLE-I That the sald, Smt. A. Meenambal, Multi Tasking Staff, Robertsonpet MDG while working as ED Stamp Vendor and GDSMP for the period from 01.10.1981 to 27.10.2013 and while working as MTS, Robertsonpet MDG for the period from 28.10.2013 to till date, has submitted false date of birth & Educational qualification by producing false copies of Transfer Certificate & Cumulative record stated to be issued by Government Girls High School Robertsonpet and false copy of SSLC. Marks Card dated 13.06.1978 stated to 7 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE be issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board, bearing the following details:
Name: A.Meenambal
D/o
Arumugham
Date of 01.05.1963
birth:
Register 503493
No.:
Appeared April- 1978
for the
SSLC
Examination
of:
Marks 261
Obtained
Class PASS
Obtained
Name of the Govt. Girls
school in High School,
which Robertsonpet
studied KGF.
SSLC:
Whereas, the Date of Birth and Educational
qualification of Smt. A. Meenambal as per the Memo of Descriptive particulars and Attestation Form dated 01.10.1981 submitted by her at the time of her engagement as ED Stamp Vendor, Oorgaum S.O is as follows:
Name: A.Meenambal
D/o
Arumugham
Date of Birth: 01.05.1955
Educational SSLC Failed
Qualification:
Name of the St.Teresa's
school in High School,
which studied Robertsonpet,
8
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
SSLC: KGF
Thus, renders Smt. A. Meenambal, MTS,
Robertsonpet MDG unfit and unsuitable for
continuance in service, as per Government of India's Decisions No. (1) & (2) under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required under Rule 3(1)(i) & 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964 and also acted in a manner of unbecoming of Government Servant in violation of Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules-1964. "
Simple examination of this Article I of charge shows that the charge is based on two sets of SSLC/School certificates; one was produced by the applicant at the time of her initial appointment in the year 1981 and another was furnished when she was getting regularised as a MTS. The date of birth and educational qualification of Smt.A Meenambal, as per the Memorandum of descriptive particulars and Attestation Form dated 1.10.1981 submitted by her at the time of her engagement as ED Stamp Vendor, Oorgaum S.O that her date of birth was on 1.5.1955 and educational qualification was shown as SSLC failed from St.Teresa's High School, Robertsonpet, KGF. Whereas at the time of her regularisation as Multi Tasking Staff, she had produced a different SSLC Certificate which shows her date of birth as 1.5.1963 with Register No.503493 and class obtained was shown as 'PASS' from Govt. Girls High 9 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE School, Robertsonpet, KGF.
Clearly these discrepancies were on record, which were submitted to the respondent authorities by the applicant herself. In such circumstances, whether the anonymous complainant was relevant to be examined is the question raised in the first ground for claiming relief.
Clearly to prove this false certificate, so called anonymous complainant was not relevant at all. The anonymous complainant may have been the cause for triggering the initiation of inquiry and further framing of charges and conduct of disciplinary inquiry against the applicant, but it is not at all relevant that the alleged anonymous complainant Shri.Abdul Kuduze Azees should have been examined and his examination only would have proved the case as both primary certificates were on record, and more importantly both the certificates were furnished by the applicant herself. As both the documents belonged to the applicant herself, she was duty bound to resolve the contradictions between them. Onus of proving, "the evident contradiction was not a criminal misconduct on the part of applicant" was on applicant herself. We record that the respondents have meticulously inquired the issue from the school and collected evidence and there were many line of evidences which prove the 10 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE case against the applicant. There were other official witnesses who could have proved the case and as we see in Annexure -IV of the charge sheet, the list of witnesses, there were 12 witnesses listed. Shri.Abdul Kuduze Azees is also one of them, but there were many others and the contradiction could have easily been proved by others and that Shri.Abdul Kuduze Azees's non-participation, in no way affects the quality of evidences, witnesses or conclusions reached in the inquiry. Hence, we consider that this ground is not relevant in this matter.
Further, it is seen that Annexure-III of the said charge sheet dated 10.11.2020, shows list of documents by which the Articles of charge framed against Smt.A.Meenambal, Multi Tasking Staff, were proposed to be sustained, give an exhaustive list of 27 documents. Hence, the argument of the applicant in paragraph 5(i) is not relevant. Hence, it is rejected.
12. In paragraph 5(ii), the applicant says that the allegations against the applicant pertain to the date of her initial appointment on 1.10.1981. On the other hand, the charge pertains to the period 40 years back and is time barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the cases (a) State of M.P v. Bani Singh (1990 (2) LLJ 529) and 11 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE another, (b) State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goyal (1995 (2) SLJ 126 SC) (c) State of A.P v. N.Radhakrishnan (AIR 1998 SC 1833) and
(d) Mahadevan P.V v. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board (2005(3) LLJ 527) that no penalty can be imposed if there is inordinate delay in framing the charge and proceeding on the same. It is bad in law. In the instant case, the incident occurred 40 years back and as such, the penalty imposed on the applicant is bad in law.
When we compare this ground with the Articles of charge which were served on the applicant, we find that it is wrong to say that after 40 years of the incident, the charges were framed as the false certificate was submitted some time only in 2013. And where there is falsehood and false certificates, it may immediately not come to the notice of the authority that it is false and only once there was a complaint on 20.10.2018 that a fake SSLC marks card has been submitted by the applicant to get regular appointment as MTS, inquiry started and charges were framed on 10.11.2020 and the applicant was proceeded with disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the framing and serving of Articles of Charge. We do not find that there is any delay in the matter as obviously in a case of fake and forged document some time lag is possible between detection of such serious misconduct and initiation 12 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, in the circumstances of this case, we do not consider any of the said citations are relevant in the case of the applicant where forged, fictitious and bogus document had been produced.
In the case of State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goyal (1995 (2) SLJ 126 SC), paragraph 4 mentions the facts of the case that the matter pertains to the year 1986-1987 and no action was taken against the respondent until 1992. There was delay in taking action and the case was not pertaining to any forged, false and fake document submission. Hence, this case is having no similarity with the case of the applicant. As well as in the said case, before the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was time gap of 7 years between the actual incident and calling of explanation. Whereas, in the present case, the false certificates were produced some time in 2013 and as in a case of false certificates which was ab initio void and nonest and do not give any right to the holder of such certificate any rights. And any right created by that certificate if it is detected to be false, action can be taken anytime subsequently. And particularly in this case only in 2018 through the agency of an anonymous petitioner, it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that it was a case of fake certificate, and they started inquiry, and within a period of 2 years 13 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE they instituted full-fledged disciplinary inquiry after obtaining all certificates and statements from appropriate authorities concerned to prove the said SSLC marks card as fake and forged. Hence, we do not find any delay or similarity between the two cases.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another (1990 (2) LLJ 529), again, it is not a case pertaining to fake and forged certificates. It is a case of promotion of IPS Officer to Selection Grade and the Tribunal directed the Government to constitute a committee to consider his promotion to super-time scale
- whether liable to be set aside. The question here is whether the Administrative Tribunal was right in interfering with the non- selection of the respondent - IPS officer to Selection Grade by the Screening Committee etc. The question decided therein had nothing to do with false and fake certificates and hence, there is no similarity between the cases. So this citation also does not support the case of the applicant.
In the third case cited in, State of A.P v. N.Radhakrishnan (AIR 1998 SC 1833), this case pertains to delay in framing charges where a report was given by the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau in the year 1987 about the irregularities in deviations and unauthorised constructions in multi-storied complexes in twin cities 14 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in collusion with Municipal authorities. Eleven officers were named including the respondent, who were said to be responsible for the abnormal deviations and unauthorised constructions and the charges were framed only in 1995 and all in verbatim and without particularizing the role played by each of the officers charged.
Hence, the ruling was on the delay in framing charges. Again, that was not the case of submission of fake and fraudulent certificates. Hence, the case was very distinct and not similar to the case of the applicant.
In another case cited of Mahadevan P.V v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005 (3) LLJ 527), the fact was delay and latches in issuing the charge memo against Superintending Engineer in year 2000 for irregularity in issuing sale deed in 1990. Delay of more than 10 years in initiating departmental proceedings, held, merited quashing them.
This case also was not of forged and fake document submission.
In none of these four cases cited are of submission of forged or fake documents by the applicant and the cases were decided based on the delay and latches which cannot be attributed to the 15 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE charged officer and it was on the part of the department.
The case of fake and forged document is on different footing and when the fake and fraudulent documents is produced by the charged officer herself, clearly, the charged officer has also contributed to the obvious delay because a fraudulent act was discovered only subsequently when someone finds the fraud and exposes it. And only when an anonymous petition was received, the fraudulent certificate which was submitted in 2013 by the applicant, which was in contradiction to the marks card produced in 1981 when the applicant first time joined the service, the inquiry started. And once allegation of submission of such fraudulent document is the subject matter, it is on a different footing and certainly it can be concluded that delay in detection of such fake and fraudulent document, the applicant, i.e., the charged officer, was very much party to contributing to such delay and in such cases, balance of convenience is always in favour of the department which is cheated by such fake and fraudulent document produced and at any point of time such a fraudulent act is detected, inquiry can be initiated. In this particular case, we cannot say that there was any inordinate delay in initiation and conduct of inquiry. In cases of fake document and fraud when ab initio the appointment of a public servant becomes 16 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE illegitimate and voidable, plea of latches and delay cannot be available to the perpetrator of such fake certificate, who cannot be considered as innocent at any point of time. As there is continuous action since 2018 when anonymous letter was received alleging fake marks card being submitted by the applicant, i.e., the charged officer, and once sufficient evidences were gathered and records were verified in 2020, the charge sheet was issued. Hence, the grounds agitated and citations mentioned in paragraph 5(ii) are irrelevant to the present case.
13. In paragraph 5(iii), the applicant put forth that the authorities of the department of Posts have accepted the original documents produced by the applicant at the time of her appointment. As such, there is no occasion for the authorities to ask the applicant to produce the original documents again, which are in their custody. The applicant had no occasion to see the original as the authorities did not furnish the same to her and as such, the applicant was not in a position to verify it.
This assertion is not understandable as the applicant herself has produced two sets of documents to the authorities. The first one was submitted at the time of her entering in to the service in the year 17 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE 1981, which are submitted before us at Annexure R(1) Attestation Form, which is also attested by the Charged Officer, i.e., the applicant on 1.10.1981 and counter signed by the officer on 18.3.1983.
In the Memo of Descriptive Particulars, her date of birth is shown as 1.5.1955 and her finger prints are also there. Declaration with the signature of the applicant is also there. This is dated 22.11.1984. In column 10, educational qualification, it is shown that SSLC (Failed) from St.Teresas High School, Robertsonpet, KGF. These documents are the charged officer/applicant's own documents and are signed by her.
As no rejoinder has been filed, in no way these documents are controverted. Hence, the respondents have rightly relied on the document at Annexure R-1 which is in their custody.
Furthermore, the applicant has submitted Annexure R-2 which is a certificate issued to the applicant by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board. It shows her date of birth as 1.5.1963 and it is issued on 13.6.1978 when she had appeared for the SSLC Examination and had passed. This certificate is signed by the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and counter signed by the Head Master of Govt. Girls High School, 18 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Robertsonpet, K.G.F and is also signed by the applicant A.Meenambal.
As no rejoinder has been filed, this certificate also cannot considered to be in any way different than in what way the respondents have asserted. As asserted in paragraph 3(ii) of the reply statement, the certificate is submitted by the applicant herself when her application was considered for appointment from GDS to MTS on selection cum seniority basis quota by DPC for the vacancy year 2013. This was submitted along with the Transfer Certificate from Government Girls High School Robertsonpet from where she was shown as passed SSLC in April 1978 and her date of birth was shown as 1.5.1963.
Once the allegation of submission of bogus certificate of marks card bearing register no.503493 at the time appointment to the post of MTS was received, respondent no.4 had issued several letters on 28.6.2019, 24.10.2019, 21.11.2019, 6.3.2020, 8.5.2020 and 15.5.2020 to the applicant to submit original SSLC marks card and Transfer Certificate or to obtain and submit the duplicate SSLC Marks card from the SSLC Board, Bengaluru, but the applicant failed to submit the same.
Clearly, we find that the applicant had only contributed to the 19 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE delay in institution of the inquiry by first submitting false details at the time of regularisation as MTS and then not submitting the originals for verification when it was asked by the authorities. Then during the inquiry to the case, the applicant on 12.3.2019 stated that her date of birth is 1.5.1963 and she passed SSLC in the year 1978 at Government Girls High School, Robertsonpet, KGF, which is produced at Annexure R-6.
And further, during the inquiry of the case on 7.1.2020, when she was instructed to identify the copy of marks card bearing registration no.503493, it was stated that she had applied for issue of duplicate SSLC marks card from KSEEB and the same will be submitted after receipt. Copy of the statement given by the applicant is produced as Annexure R-7.
During the inquiry, the Vice Principal of Government Girls pre university college, Robertsonpet, KGF stated that in the SSLC result issued for the year 1978, on verification, it is noticed that for the said year the registration numbers for SSLC examination pertaining to their school was from F 047622 to R 048516 and the Registration No.503493 is not available in the said result list. Copy of the same is produced as Annexure R-8.
As there is no rejoinder, these documents have not been 20 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE denied or controverted in any way by the applicant.
The case was further inquired in detail with the authorities of Government Girls Lower Primary School (High School Section) Robertsonpet, KGF with the details provided by the applicant and it is revealed that as per the cumulative record of the school for the year 1975-76, the student name Meenambal d/o.Arumugham was not registered in their records, and in the SSLC result of April 1978, register number 503493 of the said student is not available and that the Xerox copies of Transfer Certificate and Cumulative record of Meenambal are not matching with the signature of Head Master who worked during the year 1978 when compared with the other records of the said year and that the register numbers of the said year are from F 047622 to F 047959 and from R047952 to R 048516 and that the copy of SSLC marks card having register No.503493 produced by applicant is not available in the result list of April 1978 received at the said school from the SSLC Board. Thereafter, the documents submitted by the applicant during her appointment as MTS and the available documents supplied by the Postmaster, Kolar H.O during her engagement as ED Stamp Vendor were compared and noticed that the applicant declared her date of birth as 1.5.1955 and education qualification as SSLC failed and the school as St.Teresa's 21 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE High School, Robertsonpet, KGF. Further enquiries were carried out with the school authorities of St.Teresa's High School, Robertsonpet. The Headmistress submitted a letter dated 21.10.2020 along with copy of SSLC Board Result sheet of April 1975, Oct-1975 and Oct - 1976 of their school, where in name of the applicant with date of birth as 1.5.1955 and result of SSLC for all the three attempts as 'fail' available. Copy of the same is produced as Annexure R-11. After thorough verification it was noticed that the documents submitted by the applicant vide Annexure R-2 at the time of DPC and the actual documents as per St.Teresa's High School, Robertsonpet are completely different and contradictory. Thereafter, the applicant was proceeded under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and hence she was issued memorandum of Article of charges vide Annexure A-4 of the O.A. After completion of inquiry, report was submitted by Inquiry Officer vide Annexure A-6. The respondent no.3 assessed that the gravity of offence and passed orders vide Annexure A-8 awarding the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect.
As no rejoinder filed, these averments of the respondents in their reply statement and in the light of documents produced by the respondents, have to be taken as true and not controverted. 22
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Facts being so, from the facts what emerges is that for the fake documents and information submitted and its slight delayed detection, the applicant herself was solely responsible. As it was a fraudulent act, any way it would have taken time to detect the same, and the detection of such fraudulent act has no limitation and none of the cited cases are relevant to this case, and this paragraph 5(iii) also is not relevant at all as the applicant was in full knowledge of the two sets of her own documents at different point of time submitted and declared by the applicant herself; one was submitted at the time of getting initial appointment as GDS on 1.10.1981 and another set was submitted when she was subsequently promoted to the post of MTS in terms of the order dated 28.2.2013. Hence, the 3rd ground has no strength.
14. In paragraph 5(iv), the applicant says that this is a case of 'no evidence'. The evidence of the departmental officials was recorded in the inquiry, who have no knowledge of the facts. Though the list of witnesses indicates persons (PW1 & PW3) working in the school where the applicant has studied, their statement before the Inquiry Officer do not support the charge framed against the applicant. In particular, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 do not indicate that they 23 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE were working in the school when the applicant was studying there. The documents were not introduced through concerned witnesses in the inquiry and the contents/relevance of the documents were not proved in the inquiry. The inquiry was nothing but a farce.
This statement is unacceptable and irrelevant as this is a case where there is plethora of evidences. The evidences which were available in the Department as two declarations; and set of documents one was given at the time of her initial engagement as GDS on 1.10.1981 and another set was given when she was appointed as MTS on 28.2.2013. This information was given by the applicant herself. The information itself were sufficient and their being detection contradictory was sufficient enough to take action against the applicant. But the respondent authorities went ahead to enquire the reasons for such differences and tried thoroughly to verify the correctness of the documents and collected primary data of those and clearly proved from the records as stated in the reply statement; which are not in any way controverted by any rejoinder.
It is clear that at the time of initial appointment as GDS in the year 1981, the applicant had declared her date of birth as 1.5.1955 and her educational qualification as SSLC failed which is borne out 24 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE from the records which are placed before us and subsequently in the year 2013 when she was regularized as MTS she produced false copies of Transfer Certificate and SSLC marks card dated 13.6.1978 from Government Girls High School showing her date of birth as 1.5.1963 and that she passed SSLC in 1978 with Registration No.503493. And all the chains of documents and events are very much shown in the inquiry, and it is not necessary that the anonymous complainant or the original school authorities who issued it should have been present and examined. It should have been proven by the office staff who were in the custody of these documents and thus their evidence would have been sufficient to prove the case.
Departmental inquiry is not like a criminal charge and it has not to be proved beyond doubt. Preponderance of probabilities is enough to substantiate the case in a departmental inquiry. Hence, the argument of the applicant that it is a case of no evidence as all the evidences are borne out from the records is not acceptable. A Plethora of documents have been produced before us in this Original Application by the respondents which have not been controverted by the applicant, and those documents clearly substantiated the case of the Department. Hence, clearly, there is sufficient proof, and also in 25 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE the case of disciplinary inquiry, the scope of judicial review is very limited. There are a plethora of case laws which restrict the scope of judicial review and re-appreciation of evidence by the judicial authorities. The leading case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran 2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follows:-
"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, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation 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;26
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE 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;
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 a 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate 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.27
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE
(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.
Xx xx xx
19. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes 28 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
We have examined the case in hand on these criteria and none of them are relevant to the case. We find that this inquiry is conducted by a competent authority, the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings, there is no disablement of the authorities from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, the authorities have not allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; the conclusion, on the very face of it, is not so wholly arbitrary and capricious and there is no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; it is not a case of authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; it is not the authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; and it cannot be said that the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Hence 29 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE there is nothing on record which would convince us to find a reason to interfere with the orders of the respondents impugned.
We do not find any ground to re-appreciate the evidence and to interfere with the conclusions of the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority. Hence to go into the adequacy of the evidence is without any reason. Further we find that there is no ground to go into the proportionality of punishment as it is a case of submission of false certificates. Hence the punishment is proportionate and reasonable and is not shocking to the conscience. Although, there is clear injunction from the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should not re-appreciate the evidence and it cannot interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law. We do not find any of the elements quoted by the Hon'ble Apex Court is applicable or relevant to the present case which has sufficient conclusive evidences to substantiate the case against the charged officer. Hence, this ground taken by the applicant has no relevance.
15. In paragraph 5(v), the applicant asserts that the appellate authority has failed to consider the appeal of the applicant in 30 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE accordance with the Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and pass an appropriate order and thereby failed to discharge his statutory functions.
Although this submission is very bland and rhetorical, and it does not point out any specific aspect of the appellate authority's order dated 1.8.2023 which renders it vitiated. We have carefully gone through Annexure A-10 which is the Appellate Authority's order against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 24.1.2023 imposing penalty of removal from service. The authority has examined the aspects of the case and discussed the evidence and even a personal hearing was given to the applicant on 24.1.2023 at 11 a.m, along with her defence assistant and considering those submissions and also going through the entire records, the appellate authority had passed the order. Hence, it is wrong to find any fault with the said order. We do not find any substance in paragraph 5 (v) of the Original Application. Hence the same is also rejected.
16. Further in paragraph 5(vi) the applicant asserts that the Xerox copy of the disputed SSLC marks card was produced in the inquiry. The original of SSLC marks card was not produced in the inquiry. Without looking in to the original marks card, a conclusion was 31 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE drawn that the marks card was fake. The authenticity of the documents produced in the inquiry could not be established as the authors of these documents were not examined in the inquiry.
These averments have no relevance as the fake copies of marks cards were submitted by the applicant herself and two sets of documents relied were produced by her and attested by her and it is not necessary to prove those documents with original marks card and it should have been produced by the applicant himself if she had one as it pertained to her. One cannot shift the burden of producing originals of fake document on the respondent department as it does not exist. The second SSLC marks card which was produced by the applicant in 2013 was fake and does not exist. So there is no way that someone could have produce it. It is the applicant who has held her own mark cards and non-production of the true one goes against her. And from the records it is evident that she was asked repeatedly to produce the originals vide direction of respondent no.4 on 28.6.2019, 24.10.2019, 24.10.2019, 22.11.2019 6.3.2020, 5.8.2020 and 15.5.21020, but she has not produced the same which are in her custody. If she has not produced in spite of asking repeatedly, at this stage in the O.A, it is impermissible for the applicant to take a plea that the department could not establish her document as fake 32 O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE certificate as the original SSLC mark card was not produced; and assert that without looking into the original a conclusion cannot be drawn that it is fake or otherwise. We record that whatever she had herself produced was fake ab initio and in such cases, no leniency can be shown. Complaining that authors of these documents were not examined in the inquiry are not relevant arguments, hence we completely reject this ground agitated as being irrelevant and in no way substantiated the case of the applicant.
17. From the records, it is very evident that there was a plethora of conclusive evidences to prove the charges against the applicant. After giving ample opportunity of being heard to the applicant, a reasonable order was passed in a case of fake and fraudulent certificate, which included the change of date of birth as well as change of SSLC pass status, was serious enough and accordingly the penalty meted out to the applicant of removal from service with immediate effect by the disciplinary authority and the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority were proper and just. We have no doubt in our mind that none of the grounds as taken by the applicant in the Original Application are valid or convincing. 33
O.A.Nos.170/00490/ 2023/CAT/BANGALORE Considering these, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant.
18. Considering these, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is dismissed. All associated Miscellaneous Applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/Sv/