Case: Air India Ltd Vs. M. Yogeshwar Raj

was submitted on 29.4.1999. The Inquiry Committee came to the conclusion that the cast certificate dated 4th February, 1998 had turned out to be a bogus certificate. It was however noted that the original caste certificate submitted by the respondent in 1976 had been affirmed by a certificate issued from the office of the Collector, Hyderabad on 11.3.1999. The Inquiry Committee was of the View : "Merely securing a wrong or false certificate, by itself does not amount to a misconduct. The certificate may be false due to ignorance or incompetence and therefore a wrong or false certificate does not necessarily create delinquency on vary of the person who produces it." Accordingly, the inquiry committee found the respondent not guilty of the charges framed. 6. It was in this background that the show cause notice impugned by the respondent before the High Court was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. In substance, the notice staged that the caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 had been found to be forged. As far as the caste certificate dated 11.3.1999 was concerned it was stated that the address mentioned in the Collectors certificate had not been mentioned as the respondents place of residence in any of his records with the appellant. It was also stated that the Collectors letter did not refer to the caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 and that if the 1976 certificate was genuine, it was to be explained why the bogus caste certificate dated 4.2.1998 was produced. According to the notice, the Inquiry Committee had not dealt with these details in its report. The Disciplinary Authority concluded by saying : "In view of the above prima facie I am of the view that acts of misconduct levelled against you vide chargesheet referred to above has been established and tend to hold you guilty of the acts of misconduct and however before coming to such conclusions, I hereby give you an opportunity to submitting your say as to why you should not be held guilty of the above charges within 3 days of communicating of this letter to you. In case you fail to submit any satisfactory explanation within the stipulated period of time. I propose to award you the punishment of dismissal from the services of the Company without retirement benefits in full as per Clause No. 20(i) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to you." 7. Clearly, the Disciplinary Authority was yet to make up his mind as to the guilt of the respondent. 8. According to the appellants, the challenge to the proceedings was premature and the High Court should not have entertained the writ application as disputed questions of fact were involved. However, we do not wish to deal with this aspect of the matter as the High Court by the order under appeal has issued a Rule Nisi and it will be open to the appellants to raise this and other contentions in their answer to the Rule. We are not aware as to the reason why the High Court was persuaded to issue a Rule Nisi, but in its further observations, "Prima facie, we are satisfied that the petitioner belongs to the Schedule CasteSchedule Tribe" and also grant of an interim or order staying the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority were erroneous. 9. It appears from a copy of the writ petition that the respondent has not questioned the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to issue the impugned Show Cause Notice. The two issues of the respondents caste and whether he had adequately explained the production of the bogus certificate of 4.10.98 are yet to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority. Both the issues are primarily issue of fact. The High Court should not have preempted a factual decision of the disciplinary authority on the issues. Nor should the High Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima facie finding on the subject matter of enquiry particularly when the competence of the Disciplinary Authority was not in doubt. 10. The respondents reliance on the decision of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen 1964(3) SCR 616 and State of Haryana v. Om Prakash, Constable 1990 (Supp) SCC 282 is misplaced. In both cases, orders of dismissal had already been passed. Furthermore the orders of dismissal had been passed on proceedings which were not the subject matter of the charge and of which the employee had not been put on notice. In the case before us, apart from the fact that no final order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the substance of the impugned notice in no way differs from that of the first notice. 11. The third decision noted by the respondent viz. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 is also inappropriate. The decision (sic) to disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect of incidents which had taken place 12 years earlier. It was said: "...... The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977, there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 year to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage." 12. Here the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent because of the production of a bogus certificate dated 4.10.1998. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.12.98. There was no delay. Besides the respondent participated in the enquiry without protest. 13. We, therefore,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Here the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent because of the production of a bogus certificate dated 4.10.1998. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.12.98. There was no delay. Besides the respondent participated in the enquiry without protest.