Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, A.K. Chawla, JJ.
Mahatma Mahto - Petitioner
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council Palika Kendra, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 573 of 2019
Decided On : 21-01-2019
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sakshi Kakkar with Mr. Shakti Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Harsha Peechara, ASC with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Ms. Kanika Singh & Ms Sriparna Chatterjee, Advs.
The Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to conduct further inquiry and is not bound by the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's report is essential.
Headnote:
Caste Certificate - Employment - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - F.R. 54-B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing him to obtain a fresh caste certificate and reinstating him in service. The respondent alleged that the petitioner produced a false caste certificate and was subsequently removed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Disciplinary Authority was entitled to conduct further inquiry into the genuineness of the caste certificate, and the petitioner's claim that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the first Inquiry Officer's report was unsubstantiated.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's caste certificate, the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct further inquiry, and the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons for disagreeing with the first Inquiry Officer's report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Disciplinary Authority had the right to conduct further inquiry and was not bound by the first Inquiry Officer's report. It also emphasized the need for the Disciplinary Authority to provide reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's report.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court reserved the respondent's grievances for consideration in a separate petition.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
C.M. No. 2576/2019(exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 573/2019 & C.M. No. 2575/2019(for interim relief)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 3.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.3035/2018. The Tribunal has disposed of the said original application preferred by the petitioner with the following directions:-
(i) The applicant is directed to file an application, with a copy to the respondent, to the District Magistrate, Saran (Chhapra), Bihar for a fresh caste certificate within two weeks.
(ii) The respondent – NDMC is also directed to write a letter to the District Magistrate, enclosing therewith a copy of the application of the applicant, for issuance of a fresh caste certificate to the applicant. The NDMC shall request to the District Magistrate to send a copy of the fresh caste certificate, with a covering letter to it, directly as well.
(iii) If the new caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate indicates that the applicant belongs to ‘Kharia’ caste, which comes under the scheduled tribe of Bihar State, in that case, the DE proceedings initiated against the applicant shall cease to exist and the applicant shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.
iv) The applicant shall be reinstated in service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. His period of suspension, however, shall be dealt with in terms of F.R. 54-B at the appropriate time.”
2. We may observe, at the outset, that the impugned order has been assailed by the respondent/NDMC by preferring WP(C) No.11181/2018 wherein the operation of the impugned order was stayed vide order dated 15.10.2018. We are informed that, consequently, further inquiry was held against the petitioner and he was found guilty of alleged misconduct of forgery, namely, producing false and fabricated ST certificate at the time of seeking employment with the respondent. On this premise, he has been removed from service and his departmental appeal is now pending before the Lieutenant Governor, who is the Appellate Authority.
3. The petitioner was initially charge sheeted in respect of the alleged false claim made by him that he was Scheduled Tribe candidate – to secure employment as a reserved category candidate with the NDMC/respondent. The charge memo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 3.6.2014. The Inquiry Officer made his report dated 6.7.2016 concluding that the charge has not been proved. The Inquiry Officer’s report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority did not pass any orders – either agreeing, or disagreeing the said report. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority, of his own, sought to make inquiry with regard to the genuineness of the caste certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment in the NDMC/respondent from the District Authority of Saran (Chhapra), Bihar. The District Welfare Officer, Saran (Chhapra), Bihar vide a letter dated 6.5.2015 informed the respondent/NDMC that the caste certificate dated 12th July, 1985 furnished by the petitioner was fake (in the impugned order the date of the caste certificate mentioned in para 2.4 is wrongly typed as 19.06.2013). On the basis of the said communication dated 6.5.2015, the Disciplinary Authority took legal opinion and finally decided vide communication dated 22.3.2018, to require the Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiry. The said communication, which has not been filed by the petitioner but has been shown in the Court by learned counsel for the NDMC/respondent (and which also forms part of the record of WP(C) No.11181/2018), reads as follows:-
“2. Accordingly, you have submitted the Inquiry report dated 06.07.16 concluding that the prosecution could not substantiate the charge framed against the C.O. On examination of your report dated 06.07
