Case: Air India Ltd Vs. M. Yogeshwar Raj

The appeal has been preferred from the order of the High Court of Bombay dated 18th September 1999 by which the High Court issued a rule and granted interim relief on the writ application filed by thesubject matter of challenge in the writ application was a show cause notice dated 30the August, 1999 issued by the appellant to the writ petitioner. The impugned show cause notice followed an earlier show cause notice (referred to as the "first notice") issued to the respondent by the appellant on 29.12.1998. It was alleged in the first notice that the respondent had been given appointment by the appellant in 1976 on the basis of his claim that he belonged to a schedule tribe against a post reserved for Schedule CasteSchedule Tribe. A caste certificate had been submitted by the respondent at the time of his appointment which had been issued by the Tutor, Department of Pathology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and attested by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad and attested by the Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk without the signature of the concerned Tahsildar. As the caste certificate was not in the prescribed form from the competent authority, the respondent had been called upon by the appellant to submit a proper certificate. Pursuant to this, a caste certificate dated 4th February, 1998 had been submitted by the respondent. It was alleged in the first notice that the caste certificate so produced was a forged document. It Was further stated in the first notice that the appellant was a prima facie of the view that it could not repose "any more confidence in any manner" on the respondent and that the appellant was prima facie of the view, having regard to nature of duty discharged by the appellant, that the respondent was not a person who could be retained in service. The respondent was charged with breach of clause 19(2) (viii) of the Certified Standing Orders. The respondent was accordingly called upon to submit an explanation in writing within three days from the date of communication of the first notice failing which further disciplinary action would be initiated against him in accordance with the Certified Standingletters dated 2nd January, 1999 and 25th January, 1999, the respondent asked for extension of time to submit his written submissions. It was granted by the appellant. On 1st February, 1999 the appellant asked the respondent to submit his explanation within days from the communication of that letter. No explanation was submitted by theInquiry Proceedings were commenced on 12th February, 1999 to inquire into the charges framed against the respondent under the first notice. Witnesses were examined and an inquiry report 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 Viewsecuring 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 producesthe inquiry committee found the respondent not guilty of the chargeswas 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 sayingview 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."

Court's reasoning:
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.