Fraud unravels everything, and a fraudulent claim for employment cannot be saved by equitable considerations. Obtaining employment through deceit has serious consequences and can lead to dismissal from service.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition has been heard afresh in terms of our order dated November 25, 2022 in the presence of the parties.

2. Original Application No. 19 of 2013, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short) was dismissed by an order dated 4th January 2019. The petitioner, the original applicant before the Tribunal, is aggrieved by such order; hence, he has presented this petition dated 30th January 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Filtering out unnecessary facts, what we find from the materials on record is that the petitioner was offered appointment on 3rd December 1977 by the office of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay on the post of Inspector of Central Excise. Although the petitioner claims that he was not appointed on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, the Establishment Order No. 374/1977 dated 6th December 1977, issued by the office of the Collector of Central Excise, assigning place of posting to the Inspectors (O.G.), Central Excise, clearly records “(S.T.)” against the name of the petitioner, appearing at Sr. No. 12. The petitioner joined on 3rd January 1978 and continued in service for nearly 3 (three) decades without even producing a tribe certificate, as prescribed as early as on 20th January 1952 and revised on 29th October 1977. The certificate that the petitioner procured from the then Special Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay reads as follows: -

“May 11, 1977.

Certificate

“This is to certify that I know Shri Sadanand Raghunath Gharat for the last 3 years. He belongs to Hindu Mahadeo Koli Community which has been classified as Scheduled Tribe by the Government of Maharashtra. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he bears good moral character.”

4. Reading the contents of the above certificate, we are of the firm view that the same may at best amount to an opinion expressed by the Magistrate based on his personal knowledge but does not qualify to be a valid certificate that was issued looking into the relevant records. Be that as it may, the employer of the petitioner did not show any real interest to call upon the petitioner to produce evidence in support of the claim that he is a member of a Scheduled Tribe. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Inspector to Superintendent on 4th March 1993. After completing a little in excess of 29 years of service, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on 3rd April 2007 by serving 3 (three) months’ notice, citing Rule 48(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 [hereafter “CCS (Pension) Rules”, for short]. On 9th April 2007, the Assistant Commissioner (P & V), Central Excise, Belapur wrote to the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Belapur-II Division to the following effect: -

“Sub:- Preparation of post based roster in respect of Shri S. R. Gharat, Superintendent, Gr. ‘B’ – reg..

---------------

Please refer to this office letter of even No. dated 20.02.2007 on the above subject.

In this connection, you are requested to verify the relevant documents/details, regarding caste of Shri S. R. Gharat Superintendent from concerned competent authorities. The requisite report in this matter may please be sent to this office by 10.04.2007 positively.”

5. Copy of the aforesaid letter was forwarded to the petitioner, with a direction to submit his valid caste certificate from the concerned competent authority by 10th April 2007, positively. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Belapur-II appears to have addressed a letter dated 9th April 2007 to the Tahsildar, Uran on the subject of verification of caste certificate of the petitioner. The Tahsildar, by his letter dated 13th April 2007, observed that the caste certificate of the petitioner, which was enclosed with the letter dated 9th April 2007, had not been issued by the office of the Tahsildar, but was issued by an Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay. It was, t