Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"If and when any information furnished by him in his application regarding his qualification, previous experience, etc., is found to be incorrect or not true, he will be liable for dismissal and such further action as is deemed fit."

(c) Ex. M.22 is a Mercy Petition sent by the workman stating that he was suffering from acute poverty without employment and in order to join duty, he has given a false educational certificate and he regrets for his conduct and also pleaded for leniency. The Labour Court held that giving a false certificate and joining duty is certainly a misconduct enumerated under 16(5) and 16(9) of the Certified Stating Orders of the Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. wherein it is clearly stated as follows:

6.2. The case of Ramamoorthy:-

(a) The name of Ramamoorthy, the workman in W.P. No. 13715 of 1997, was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. At the time of joining service, he gave an educational certificate stating that he had passed 8th Std. and produced a Certificate from the Hindu Aided Higher Elementary School at Chinnamangulam. When it was verified with the District Educational Officer, the Management was informed that from 1960-1962, it was only a Higher Elementary School but in 1976, when the workman claimed to have studied 8th Std, such a class was not available in the school and, therefore, it was a false certificate. On the basis of the same, he was suspended w.e.f. 14.7.1990 and a charge-memo dated 24.7.1990 was given to him. Thereafter, he submitted his explanation on 18.8.1990 and after conducting an enquiry, a second show cause notice was given to him on 24.9.1990 for which he gave an explanation on 05.10.1990 and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 31.12.1990. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer and finally, the matter was taken up by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 300 of 1991 and issued notice to the Management.

(b) Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 whereas on the side of the Management, three witnesses were examined as M.W.1 to M.W.3. On the side of the workman, he filed a copy of the Certified Standing Orders and on the side of the Management, 27 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.27. The Labour Court referred to Exs. M.21 and M.27, requisitions made to the Employment Exchange asked for sponsorship of candidates for the post of Drivers with 8th Std. pass. Thereafter, the Labour Court held that either in the Certified Standing Orders or under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no requirement for passing 8th Std. to hold the post of Driver. It also held that it cannot be a misconduct in terms of the Standing Orders. It further held that one Pandi, who was also working similarly and was dismissed from service by Ex. M.22 was subsequently taken on service as a temporary workman the terms of Settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act marked as Ex. M.24. Therefore, there has been no dismissal given to any person in violation of the so-called qualification. It also held that even assuming that the charge of giving a false certificate is proved, the Management could have imposed a lesser punishment and instead of finding it out at the time of appointment, raising the issue after such a long period is not allowed as they are estopped from doing so. It also held that for giving a false certificate, the said charge cannot be framed under the Standing Orders and in view of the matter, he was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the backwages.

Therefore, it is not a case of disciplinary action but a question of not having the essential qualification for continuing in service.

12. Whether leniency can be shown in such cases:-

In fact, in such cases, the Court cannot show any sympathy. The Supreme Court in Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF [(2006) 2 SCC 541] observed in paragraphs 9 to 11 as follows:

Para 9: "In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 116-17, para 19) 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud. Para 10: Though the case related to a false [caste] certificate, the logic indicated clearly applies to the present case.