Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard Miss Akansha Sharma, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Manish Goyal, Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (herein after referred to as the 'UPSIDC').

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Managing Director of the UPSIDC dated 27.01.2015 removing the petitioner from the post of Senior Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 issued an Advertisement on 19.01.2009 inviting applications from candidates for appointment for the post of Senior Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590. The petitioner made her application along with supporting documents regarding her educational qualifications. The petitioner did not file any certificate relating to Excellence in Sports. She was interviewed and issued an Appointment Letter on 11.08.2009. After working for one year she was also confirmed by an order dated 26.10.2010.

3. It seems that appointment made by the UPSIDC in the year 2008-09 was reviewed at the level of the State Government and Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur was asked to submit a report by an order of the Industrial Development Commissioner dated 19.05.2012. Some doubts were expressed regarding sports certificates allegedly submitted by the petitioner as found in the record of the petitioner with respect to participation in a Hockey competition in Guru Nanak Girls Degree College, Sundar Nagar, Kanpur.

8. It has been submitted that the petitioner is governed by the UPSIDC (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1998-99 (herein after referred to as the 'UPSIDC Rules, 1998-99') and if the services of an employee had to be dispensed with, then Rules 38 & 39 have to be followed which prescribe detailed procedure for conduct of disciplinary proceedings. In the facts of the case of the petitioner, removal from service is a major penalty which could not have been given without following the Rules and holding of disciplinary proceedings. In similar circumstances one Sharmila Patel was also removed from service. She filed Writ Petition No. 66054 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court on 16.04.2015. In her case also the UPSIDC had alleged the submission of forged sports certificate and had relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanathan Pillari vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2004 SC, 1469 which was to the effect that submission of false caste certificate by a candidate to claim appointment makes the appointment void ab initio and in such cases there was no requirement for holding disciplinary proceedings.

20. It was also argued that the petitioner was a confirmed employee and in the UPSIDC Rules 1998-99, one of the types of misconduct mentioned was resorting to misrepresentation or giving incorrect information for securing an appointment. The petitioner was charged with the said misconduct and not given any opportunity to defend herself. It has also been argued that the impugned order is perverse as the petitioner's selection and appointment are governed under the Rules of UPSIDC which do not provide any additional marks or benefit to be given to a candidate for excellence in sports.