THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23528 of 2011 Dated:23.08.2011 Between: N.Narasimha Reddy .. Petitioner And The General Manager, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nizamabad Telecom District, Nizamabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23528 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Telecom Office Assistant (TOA) in the year 1978 in the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes (STs). At that time, he produced a community certificate showing that he belongs to ST (Hill Reddy) community. In fact, he does not belong to ST community. This was unearthed in 1995 and a criminal case being C.C.No.405 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, was instituted against him for the offences under Sections 465, 471 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The learned Magistrate convicted him on 29.10.1998 and imposed rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 465 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under 471 IPC, besides imposing simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.287 of 1998 against the said C.C. The Court of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, allowed the said appeal on 02.07.1999 and acquitted the petitioner. The lower appellate Court observed that the judgment in Criminal Case does not preclude the Telecom Department from taking appropriate departmental action against the accused – petitioner, if any misconduct is proved in the departmental enquiry. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge memo dated 07.08.2000 was issued framing five charges, which read as under. ARTICLE – I : Shri N.Narasimha Reddy was appointed as TOA against ST reserved quota w.e.f. 22.12.1978 on his producing relevant documents including Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Siddipet declaring that he belongs to ST. Subsequently, enquiries made by the RDO/Siddipet revealed that he belongs to “Panakati Reddy” community as a backward class and not as ST (Hill Reddy) community. He thus attained employment by misrepresenting his caste and producing a false caste certificate claiming that he belongs to ST (Hill Reddy). ARTICLE – II : Shri N. Narasimha Reddy submitted his attestation form willfully stating that he belonged to “Hill Reddy” community, which is not ST and thus deceived the department. ARTICLE – III : The official failed to intimate the Administration about his conviction by the trial Court under C.C.No.405 of 95. Also he failed to comply with the guidelines issued vide COI, MBA, OM No.30/59/54-Est(A) dated 22.05.55 in intimating the department when the case was tried at Higher Court under C.C.No.287 of 98. ARTICLE – IV : Shri N. Narasimha Reddy acknowledged his seniority and accepted his community as ST as circulated in the Gradation List as pm 01/07/1987 by signing them. At any time he did not intimate the department for correction of his caste despite the clear instructions to intimate the corrections. ARTICLE – V : Shri N. Narasimha Reddy got seniority over others by virtue of the Roster application in connection with training to the restructured cadre of Sr.TOA and got appointed to the cadre of Sr.TOA (G). After conducting enquiry in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules), the Deputy General Manager of BSNL imposed punishment of removal from service by order dated 19.09.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. By order dated 12.11.2003, the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14362 of 2004 against the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) as a notification under Section 44(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was not issued bringing the BSNL within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Subsequent to the issuance of notification, the said writ petition was transferred and registered before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal being T.A.No.31 of 2009. By the impugned order dated 06.07.2010, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said T.A., against which the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, besides reiterating the contentions raised by the Tribunal, also raised an additional contention before us. He would contend that the petitioner was an employee of the Department of Telecom (DOT) on deputation to BSNL. As he was not absorbed in the latter, the disciplinary authority had no jurisdiction to remove the petitioner. It is now well settled that in a writ petition against the order of removal/dismissal or imposing any punishment on a Government servant, the Court of judicial review would not re-appreciate the evidence and, unless it is an ex facie case “of no evidence”; does not ordinarily interfere with the punishment imposed against the delinquent employee and unless the findings of the disciplinary authority are so perverse would not interfere with those findings even if the second view is possible. Applying this principle, we have perused the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the order of the learned Tribunal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered orders of these authorities. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is to be stated for the purpose of rejection. Admittedly, the petitioner was an accused in criminal cases before the trial Court or the appellate Court. He was given ample opportunity during the enquiry and also availed the remedy of appeal under Rule 27 of the Rules, but he never raised such a plea. Secondly, while working as TOA, he signed the attestation form certifying that he belongs to ST. As found by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, the gradation list of TOAs as on 01.07.1987 was circulated to the petitioner for acquittance and he accepted that he belongs to ST. These instances would certainly belie the contention of the petitioner that he was not absorbed as an employee of BSNL and continued to be the employee of DOT. Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, judicial notice of the fact can be taken that after incorporation of BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000, all the employees of DOT became the employees of BSNL, unless they did not opt for the same. No material is placed before us that the petitioner did not opt to be continued as BSNL employee. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 23.08.2011 KH