W.P (C) No.5574/2008 Page 1 of 5 .* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI W.P (C) No. 5574 of 2008 Shambhu Mishra ......Petitioner Through: Mr. K. C. Mittal, Adv. with Mr. Rahul Goyal, Adv. Versus Airport Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. ….Respondents Through: Mr. M.S. Nidhi Manocha, Adv. for R-1 Judgment pronounced on: 15.09.2010 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ for setting aside the following: (i) Order of review dated 04.07.2007 (ii) The order of appeal dated 16.06.2005 and (iii) The order of the disciplinary authority dated 06.04.2004 ordering the termination of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that since 1986 the petitioner had been working for respondent No. 1 the Airport Authority of India at the post of beldar and by the order dated 17.05.1996 W.P (C) No.5574/2008 Page 2 of 5 he was regularized by the management of the respondent No. 1 as he was one of the employees covered by the judgment dated 06.09.1990 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 1174 directing the Airport authority of India to fill up the vacancies on regular basis. 3. As per the petitioner at the time of the preparation of the seniority list he submitted his documents along with school leaving certificate, of class VII of a school in Bihar for his age proof. On 12.04.1999 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner but, according to him it was based on a false complaint made by a person named Umakant Jha, who is neither known to him nor an employee of the respondent No. 1, alleging that the school leaving certificate furnished by the petitioner is wrong. After the issuance of the said chargesheet the petitioner filed his reply in which he stated that he never studied in Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior Secondary School Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar instead he studied in Adarsh Prasad Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar and his date of birth is 29.04.1965. 4. The inquiry was conducted in the matter and the Enquiry Officer concleded as under : “…FINDNGS:- I am left with no other option and came to conclude that the wrong information about his age and of his wife on the respective dates in March 96, May 96, Aug 96 further prove the charges leveled against DE. It is further established from the documents produced before W.P (C) No.5574/2008 Page 3 of 5 me that DE got admission in the Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Sr. Sec. School, Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar for higher studies and thus has acted in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Authority and by submitting wrong/false information has failed to maintain absolute integrity. Thus from the above charges no. 2 & 3 leveled against the DE stands proved….” 5. The IGI Airport sought information from both schools and the principal of Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior Secondary School Kadirabad, Darbhanga, Bihar issued a certificate dated 20.07.1998 stating that the date of birth of Sh. Shambhu Mishra is 05.12.1956. Later on the same school issued another certificate dated 15.05.1999 stating that the certificate issued on 20.07.1998 pertained to Shambhu Nath Mishra and not to Shambhu Mishra the petitioner in the present case. According to the petitioner the principal of Adarsh Prasad Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar issued certificate dated 20.11.1998 certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner is 29.04.1965. 6. The inquiry officer relied upon the first certificate dated 20.07.1998 issued by Govt. Mukandi Chawdhary Senior Secondary School Kadirabsd, Darbhanga, Bihar and discarded the certificate dated 20.11.1998 issued by Adarsh Prasad Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar. The Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 07.03.2001 ordered the termination of the petitioner. 7. The said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner W.P (C) No.5574/2008 Page 4 of 5 in appeal and the Appellate Authority sent the matter back for holding de-nevo enquiry as it was observed that the inquiry proceedings held against the petitioner were not proper and also quashed the order of termination placing the petitioner in suspension. However, instead of holding the de-nevo enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority insisted that the petitioner should undergo a medical test but the petitioner submitted that his medical test has already been done and in the health certificate dated 27.05.1996 the age of the petitioner is given to be 32 years. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 06.04.2004 terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 26.04.2004 against the order of the said Disciplinary Authority which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 16.05.2005. The petitioner then filed a review petition dated 07.09.2005. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the Sub-Committee of Board of Airport Authority reviewed the entire case taking into consideration all the submissions of the petitioners made in the review petition dated 07.09.2005 but rejected it in view of the non- cooperative attitude and disobedience of the petitioner. 9. The respondent did not consider the certificate dated 20.11.1998 issued by Adarsh Prasad Secondary School Ranipur Darbhanga, Bihar which was in possession of the respondent. The submission of the respondent has no force W.P (C) No.5574/2008 Page 5 of 5 when it is stated that the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceeding, therefore, this court may not interfere with the order passed as the petitioner ought to go for medical examination in order to get an idea of his age. Actually, the said medical examination was to be conducted for the purpose of getting the idea of petitioner’s approximate age. On the other hand, the school certificate furnished by the petitioner clearly indicates the date of birth of the petitioner. Once the cogent evidence was available with the respondent wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned and validity of certificate had been certified by the school in question, thus the termination of the petitioner on this reason was illegal and against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry proceedings are set aside. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16th June, 2005 is set-aside. Therefore, the appeal becomes infructuous. The petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement in service as he was on the date of termination of his services with the respondent within a period of two months. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. No costs. MANMOHAN SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 dp