IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for obtaining a position through fraudulent means, affirming that principles of natural justice were not violated during the disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER:

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Central Government counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1525 of 2003 challenging the order of dismissal dated 21.06.2002, as also the order dated 19.05.2003 confirming the punishment of dismissal, with the further relief to reinstate the petitioner into service from 21.06.2002 with back wages.

3. The Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘CAT’) dismissed the OA by an order dated 08.09.2004. Challenging this order of Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA.

5. Learned counsel for Central Government submits that the order of dismissal was passed after holding due enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing. The enquiry officer recorded the finding that the Scheduled Tribe certificate, based upon which the petitioner obtained employment, was bogus certificate. The same was also cancelled by the District Collector. The report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner against which, he filed representation and considering the same the penalty of dismissal was imposed. He submits that the order does not suffer from any illegality.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

7. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner obtained the appointment as Diesel cleaner, based on the Scheduled Tribe certificate dated 29.03.1983 issued by the Tahsildar. While the petitioner was working as HSK Grade II, on promotion, he was served with the Charge memo dated 02.02.2001 that he had given wrong declaration and produced bogus certificate. The petitioner submitted explanation on 05.03.2001. The Enquiry officer submitted report to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was afforded opportunity against the enquiry officer report. He filed representation dated 23.01.2002. The penalty of dismissal dated 21.06.2002 was imposed which order was affirmed by the appellate authority.

8. The petitioner’s certificate of Scheduled Tribe was cancelled by the District Collector on 07.10.2000. The verification was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. It was found that the petitioner did not belong to Yanadi Community (ST) but he belonged to Sethi Balija Community (OC). Before cancellation of the certificate by the District Collector, the petitioner was afforded opportunity by the District level scrutiny committee, Anantapur to attend the enquiry and produce copies of the study certificates from Class-I to Class-X along with other relevant documents for verification before 30.06.2000. But the petitioner did not produce the required documents. The petitioner was also asked to attend for enquiry on 22.08.2000 before the District Level Scrutiny Committee and on different dates but inspite of notice served through registered post as well, he did not attend the enquiry. Again, thereafter, inspite of the final notice served through registered post on 05.09.2002 the petitioner did not avail opportunity of hearing before Scrutiny Committee. The Tribunal has mentioned all these facts in its judgment in consideration of the order/report of the District Collector, Anantapur District.

9. In Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 977, the first respondent therein joined the service of the appellant as a Junior Assistant against the post reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled caste and had submitted a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar. Later on that cast certificate was cancelled under Rule 8(2) of the Orrissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980. Following the cancellation of the caste certificate, the appellant init