1 wp 4266.11.doc k IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4266 OF 2011 Moreshwar Ganapatrao Junghare, Aged 49 years, residing at 0-10/5, New Airport Coloney, Vile Parle (East) Mumbai – 400 099. ..Petitioner. Versus 1 Union of India through its D.G.C.A. having its office at Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi – 110 003. 2 Airports Authority of India, through its Chairman, having its office at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 003. 3 Sub Committee of Board of Airports Authority of India, having its office at Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 003. ..Respondents. Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Cama, senior counsel i/b M/s The Law Point for Respondent no.2 CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. 2 wp 4266.11.doc JUDGMENT: (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. 3 By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 4 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner- original Applicant challenges the order dated 15th April, 2011 passed by the Respondent no.3 - Sub Committee of Board of Airport Authority of India in Appeal against the order of dismissal dated 3rd December, 2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority - Respondent no.2. 5 A few facts of the matter are as under: In the present case, in 1984 pursuant to the selection made by the Union Public Service Commission, the Petitioner joined the services of Respondent no.2 under reserved category of Scheduled 3 wp 4266.11.doc Tribe. On completion of training, the Petitioner reported for duties at Mumbai Airport on 20th March, 1986, thereafter, on 20th March, 1988, the services of the Petitioner have been confirmed on the post of Aerodrome Officer. During the course of service, the Petitioner was promoted from time to time and finally he was promoted to the post of General Manager with effect from 18th October, 2005. 6. Because of non-production of caste validity certificate and for other incidents, the Respondent decided to take action against the Petitioner, therefore, they issued a chargesheet dated 30th April, 2008 against the Petitioner for holding an enquiry under Regulation 29 of the Airports Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003. In the said chargesheet, the Petitioner was charged for seven offences out of which three offences were in respect of caste certificate. Those are as under: “Article-V Shri MG Junghare was appointed to a post reserved for a S.T. candidate whereas, in the records of St. John’s School, Nagpur and Science College Nagpur in which he studied upto X and XII std. for academic sessions 1976 – 77 and 1978 – 79 respectively, it was observed that his caste was shown as ‘Dhobi’. In 4 wp 4266.11.doc Maharashtra State ‘Dhobi’ Caste comes under OBC Category and not S.T. Category, as clarified by the Distt. Collector, Nagpur. Hence, Shri M.G. Junghare is responsible in getting appointment in the year 1985–86 on the basis of a false caste certificate by wrongly declaring himself as S.T.” “Article-VI Shri MG Junghare through his replies dated 14.05.2007, 20.07.2007 and 07.09.2007 in response to the ‘Show Cause Memo’ issued vide No.C.13011/1/2007-Disc, dated 19.01.2007 and reminder letter dated 13.08.07 issued by the Pers. Dte. CHQ had furnished copies of Caste Certificate of his brother late Shri Prakash G. Junghare, showing his caste ‘Dhobi’ i.e. S.T. and copy of affidavit of his father made for changing of caste from ‘Dhobi’ to Dhoba’ in school records, in support of his own claim as S.T. Caste. In his reply, he declared his sub-caste as ‘Dhoba’ which comes under S.T. category. However, on verification from the office of Distt. Collector, Nagpur, caste certificate of his brother was found to be bogus as the same was not issued by the Distt. Authorities. Thus, Shri MG Junghare is responsible for using and submitting a copy of bogus caste certificate of his brother, in support of his claim of belonging to ST category.” 5 wp 4266.11.doc “Article - VII Shri MG Junghare was again given an opportunity by issuing a note by the Vigilance Department on 04/07 Dec., 2007 containing ten simple questions to be replied by him like his native address, Distt. Authority from whom he obtained the S.T. Certificate, month/year of obtaining caste certificate etc. Shri Junghare submitted a very vague and evasive reply on 31.12.07 and he failed to answer even a single question. For getting the matter delayed and to save himself of punitive actions, he with the intention to delay the matter, desired more time i.e. upto 15th February, 2008 for finding out address of his native place and finally on 14.2.08, he instead of intimating his native address, has replied that his fathers/forefathers in 1930 had come to Nagpur from a small village of Central Provinces in search of work. Shri MG Junghare, GM (ATM) by the above said acts of grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of him as an employee of the Authority thereby violating Regulations 4(1)(a)(c)(d) & 5(iv), (vi), (xxviii), (xxxvi) of AAI Employees (CDA) Regulations, 2003.” 7 On the above charges amongst others, Departmental Enquiry was held against the Petitioner by Shri Dinish Kumar, Executive 6 wp 4266.11.doc Director (Pers.). The Inquiry Officer gave full opportunity to the Petitioner to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and also to adduce evidence. The Inquiry Officer after appreciating the evidence held that all the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved and he submitted his report dated 21st June, 2010 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the report to the Petitioner and called upon him to submit his submissions/representation within fifteen days. The Disciplinary Authority rejected the representation of the Petitioner and accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and passed order dated 3rd December, 2010 dismissing the Petitioner from service with effect from 9th December, 2010. The Petitioner challenged the said order in Appeal before the Sub-Committee and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority by order dated 15th April, 2011 conveyed to the Petitioner the order of dismissal of his Appeal. 8 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submitted that both the authorities below failed to appreciate that at the time of joining services in the year 1984, he submitted original caste certificate to the authority and therefore, there is no question of 7 wp 4266.11.doc submitting the same again. He further submits that it was the duty of the Respondent to forward the caste certificate for verification to the caste scrutiny committee and as the same was not done by the Respondent for the last several years, they could not take action against the Petitioner for non production of caste certificate from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He submits that Petitioner joined the services in the year 1984 and when he joined he submitted original certificate and in support of that he relied on a letter dated 12th October, 1984 written by the Assistant Director of Administration which read thus: “The Union Public Service Commission vide their letter No. F.1/250/83-RT(NC) dated 28-8-84 has intimated your selection for recruitment to the post of Aerodrome Officer in this Department. Before the offer of appointment is sent to you, you are requested to submit the original certificate issued by the District Authorities in regard to your claim to belonging to SC ST community. The offer of appointment will be sent only after the receipt of the original certificate as mentioned above.” 9 On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that both the authorities below 8 wp 4266.11.doc erred in coming to the conclusion that Petitioner has not produced a valid caste certificate. 10 On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposed the present Petition. He submits that both the authorities below considered evidence on record; the same cannot be re-appreciated in the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the Respondent time and again called upon the Petitioner to submit a caste certificate which he failed to do so. He further submits that the Petitioner was selected through Union Public Service Commission and joined the services by showing himself as Scheduled Tribe candidate. Whereas, the school authority of St. John’s High School, Mohan Nagar, Nagpur vide letter No.SJHS/2005-06/389 dated 5th December, 2006 provided an attested copy of admission form of Petitioner in class V which indicate that his father mentioned/declared the Petitioner’s caste as “Dhobi” in 1971, later on, the Principal of the same school also provided a copy of counterfoil of Transfer Certificate No.E1152/76-77, dated 31st March, 1977 in which the caste of the Petitioner was entered as “Hindu Dhobi”, which does not fall within S.T. Category. 9 wp 4266.11.doc 11 On the basis of those submissions, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Respondents are fully justified in accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer confirmed in Appeal and in passing the order of the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. 12 We have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. Perused the report of the Enquiry Officer and gone through the documents produced and relied upon by the Respondents during the Departmental Enquiry. During the arguments we called upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner to produce even a photocopy of the caste certificate which the Petitioner averred to have been produced but on instructions from the Petitioner, who was present in the court, the learned counsel expressed his inability to do so. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority concurrently held that the Petitioner failed to produce caste certificate showing that he belongs to a caste falling within the S.T. Category. The learned counsel for the Petitioner did not indicate any illegality in the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the Petitioner so as to vitiate the enquiry. The concurrent finding of fact on appreciating the evidence on record by the Enquiry Officer and the 10 wp 4266.11.doc Appellate Authority, cannot be interfered with by this court in the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is found to be perverse, which is not the case herein. Consequently, we find that there is no substance in the Petition and it is dismissed. 13 Rule is discharged. 14 No order as to costs. (K.K. Tated, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)