Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Before the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties can be noticed, we deem it appropriate to refer to the facts, as stated by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

6. As per the petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondents on 21.1.2002 in the daily, The Hindustan Times, for various posts in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, the petitioner applied for the post of „Staff Nurse‟ in the OBC category. On being declared successful, the petitioner joined the post of Staff Nurse (Male) at Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, w.e.f. 24.3.2004. In the month of October, 2015, an anonymous complaint was made alleging that the petitioner had produced a fake caste certificate/document to secure the job as he did not belong to the OBC caste. An inquiry was conducted, pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 1.8.2007 was issued to the petitioner herein under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. A charge sheet was issued on 14.1.2008 alleging that the petitioner had got the Government job on the basis of a fake OBC Certificate. After the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.7.2010, the disciplinary authority issued a Memorandum dated 19.8.2010 and finally by an order dated 16.11.2010 the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which order was upheld by the appellate authority vide its order dated 22.5.2012. The OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

8. Another contention, sought to be urged by counsel for the petitioner before us, is that it has not been proved that the petitioner had produced a fake OBC certificate as the communication received from the office of SDM would show that the word „not‟ has been added in ink and there are no initials over the addition. Moreover, the respondents have failed to lead complete evidence to show that the OBC certificate by itself was fake. It is also submitted that the word „not‟, which has been added in ink, is in fact an interpolation of the document and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to contest the same. Counsel further submits that in view of the above irregularities, this Court would be entitled to go into issue as to whether the certificate submitted by the petitioner was in fact fake or not.

17. Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that Patwari had appeared as a witness and a similar statement was made by him and, thus, to say that evidence was not led by the respondent to show that the OBC certificate was fake is without any force.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that merely because the petitioner belongs to OBC caste from Rajasthan, the said OBC certificate cannot be relied upon by the petitioner, as the petitioner had to satisfy Clause 5 of the advertisement dated 21.1.2002, as per which "SC and OBC candidates must furnish the category certificate issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi". Counsel further submits that since the petitioner was not an OBC from Delhi, a forged certificate was filed and, thus, necessary punishment was awarded to him. Counsel also contends that the judgment, sought to be relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.P. Malhotra (supra) and CSHA University and CSHA University And Another (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the disciplinary authority did not differ/disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which is evident upon the observations made by the Inquiry Officer in Clause 5 of the inquiry report, extracted hereinabove. It is further contended that a categorical finding has been given by the disciplinary authority that the said certificate is not issued by the SDM, Kanjhawala, which was the issue at hand and, thus, there was no necessity for the disciplinary authority to give reasons for his differing with the inquiry report.

25. As far as the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (supra) is concerned, we find that neither there is violation of natural justice for conducting the proceedings nor the authorities had disabled themselves in reaching a fair conclusion by considerations, which are extraneous to the evidence and merits on record, as nothing has been placed either before us or before the Tribunal.

26. We find that the conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are not arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at such a conclusion. In the teeth of the categorical finding that the OBC certificate is a fake document, which is also based on the testimony of SDM, we find no grounds to interfere in the matter. This petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.