-1- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 25, 2008. Sudesh Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing the order -2- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. dated April 02, 2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') whereby Original Application No.933- PB-2002 filed by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated May 01, 2001 (Annexure P-3) dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect and the order dated August 16, 2002 (annexed with Annexure P-4) declining the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated May 01, 2001 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was appointed as Clerk Grade-II against reserved vacancy of Scheduled Tribe in the office of Station Director, Commercial Broadcasting Service, Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, vide order dated November 16, 1976. At the time of appointment, he submitted a Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated August 21, 1975 (Annexure P-9) purportedly issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ludhiana. On receipt of a complaint that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate submitted by the petitioner was bogus, the respondents referred the matter to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, for investigation. The office of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, informed the Deputy Director (Administration), Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandher, that as per official records, no such Scheduled Tribe Certificate was issued to the petitioner. It was further informed that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated August 21, 1975 (Annexure P-9) was bogus and forged one. The petitioner, by submitting the aforesaid bogus -3- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. certificate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category, also got the benefit of age relaxation of five years admissible to Scheduled Tribe Candidates. At the time of his appointment, his age was 28 years and 10 months whereas the upper age limit for general category candidates was 25 years. Thus, the petitioner got appointment in service by submitting a bogus and forged certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. For getting appointment, the petitioner had also submitted an attested copy of purported original certificate of Higher Secondary Examination (Annexure P-11) showing his date of birth as December 01, 1952. On receipt of a complaint that the petitioner had not given his correct age, the matter was referred to the Controller of Examinations, Punjab University, Chandigarh, by the respondents. The Controller of Examinations, Punjab University, Chandigarh, vide letter dated April 09, 1997, informed that the petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary (Commerce Group) Examination in March, 1964, against Roll No.79925 by getting 801 marks out of 1850. Along with the letter, a duplicate certificate in relation to the passing of the Higher Secondary Examination by the petitioner was also enclosed. His date of birth in the certificate was stated to be December 01, 1947. The petitioner was, thus, overage since his age was more than 25 years at the time of joining the service, but by submitting a bogus certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe, he got age relaxation of 5 years. He thus not only submitted a -4- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. forged certificate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category but also submitted a fabricated copy of the Higher Secondary Examination pass certificate showing his date of birth as December 01, 1952. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the following articles of charge:- “ARTICLE-I. That Shri Sudesh Kumar at the time of his appointment as Clerk Grade-II in the office of the Station Director (Commercial), Commercial Broadcasting Service, Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, had produced false Caste Certificate dated 21.8.1975 issued and signed under seal by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ludhiana. The said certificate had never been issued by the concerned authorities. By the above act Shri Sudesh Kumar had failed to maintain absolute integrity and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rule 3 (1)(i) and (iii) of C.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE -II. -5- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. That the said Shri Sudesh Kumar at the time of his appointment as Clerk Grade-II in the office of Station Director (Commercial), Commercial Broadcasting Service, Radio Kashmir, Srinagar, had produced false certificate with detailed marks bearing No.15490 dated Nov. 11, 1975 and 3.12.1974 wherein his date of birth has been shown as 1.12.1952. His actual date of birth is 1.12.1947 as per Punjab University's Duplicate Certificate No.8375 dated 9.5.1997. By the above act Shri Sudesh Kumar had failed to maintain absolute integrity and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rule 3 (1)(i) and (iii) of C.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. He submitted reply. Regular inquiry was held against him. Mr. R.P. Munjal, A.S.E submitted his inquiry report dated February 26, 2001, holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The findings arrived at in the inquiry report was accepted. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. His reply was received. -6- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. The competent authority i.e Director, Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra, vide his detailed order dated May 01, 2001 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred against the order (Annexure P-3) was dismissed by the Director General, Doordarshan, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi, as per an elaborate and well-reasoned order dated August 16, 2002 (Annexure P-4). These orders were upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated April 02, 2003 (Annexure P-1) while dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal also observed that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Department may consider the feasibility of initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders by exercising our writ jurisdiction. No convincing argument could be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As stated above, the respondent-authorities observed all rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings. No illegality was committed in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. It is also worth noticing that during the course of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner made requests for change of the Inquiry Officers as well as the Presenting Officers. On his -7- Civil Writ Petition No.7227-CAT of 2003. requests, the Inquiry Officers and the Presenting Officers were changed thrice. All excuses and pretexts appear to have been used by the petitioner to prolong the inquiry so that he could continue in service as long as possible. The petitioner continued in the job for about 25 years which he had secured through fraudulent means. He got the salary for all these years, got promotion and enjoyed all other perks, to which he was not entitled at all. Consequently, we dismiss this writ petition being without any merit. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE March 25, 2008. ak