SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Surender Kumar – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11031 of 2022, CM APPL. 32309 of 2022 & 32310 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Senior Panel, Counsel, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to conduct a fair inquiry in disciplinary proceedings and the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of remitting the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fair inquiry from the point it stood vitiated.

Headnote:

Forgery - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (CCA) Rules - Summary Dismissal - [FORGERY] - [Disciplinary Proceedings] - [CCS (CCA) Rules] - [Rule 14(18) violation] - The court set aside the inquiry proceedings and penalty order due to violations of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, as the inquiry was conducted in a manner opposed to principles of natural justice. However, the court remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fair inquiry from the point it stood vitiated and to conclude the same within six months.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was appointed as Caretaker in Safdarjung Hospital and was accused of producing a forged certificate. The Central Vigilance Commission forwarded a complaint regarding the disappearance of the respondent's educational qualification certificate, leading to disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The inquiry report concluded that the respondent had submitted a fake and forged Mark Sheet of Higher Secondary Examination 1982 and tampered with the actual Mark Sheet issued to him by the Board. The penalty of 'Dismissal from Service' was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the inquiry proceedings and penalty order due to violations of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, as the inquiry was conducted in a manner opposed to principles of natural justice. However, the court remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fair inquiry from the point it stood vitiated and to conclude the same within six months.

Issues: Violation of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, procedural faults in the inquiry proceedings, and the appropriateness of the penalty imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of conducting a fair inquiry in disciplinary proceedings and the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice. It also highlighted the requirement to remit the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fair inquiry from the point it stood vitiated.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order directing the re-instatement of the respondent with back wages and remitted the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fair inquiry from the point it stood vitiated and to conclude the same within six months.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated January 12, 2022, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 4280/2018, whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent was partly allowed in the following terms:

"20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that OA deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed with the following orders:

(i) The impugned inquiry reported dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure A-2), penalty order dated 17.1.2018 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority's order dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure A-4) are set aside;

(ii) The respondents are directed to re-instate the applicant forthwith;

(iii) The applicant shall be entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and law on the subject and the respondents shall pass an appropriate speaking order in this regard within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order; and

(iv) The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter, if they so decide, however, in accordance with law."

2. In brief, the respondent was appointed as Caretaker in Safdarjung Hospital on July 25, 1986, as per Recruitment Rules on the basis of matriculation certificate i.e. Higher Secondary School Examination 1982 from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Respondent was promoted in the course of his service to the post of Chief Sanitary Superintendent on January 01, 2000. Vide memorandum dated December 26, 2012, Central Vigilance Commission forwarded a complaint dated August 13, 2012, received by CVC against respondent Surender Kumar and one Shri O.P. Sharma, DDA, including disappearance of respondent's educational qualification certificate of eligibility. It was informed that the complaint is not an anonymous one and had been forwarded under "Public Interest Disclosure Resolution" keeping the identity of the complaint secret. Accordingly, memorandum was issued to Vigilance Officer, Safdarjung Hospital for taking necessary action.

3. Consequently, respondent was directed to produce original certificate of his educational qualification before the Section Incharge of Admn. II. In response to reminder dated April 12, 2013, issued to the respondent, it was informed that the information has already been given to the Vigilance Officer. The necessary documents were stated to have been submitted to the Administrative Section from time to time in original but the same were not returned to the individual concerned. However, respondent failed to file any proof of submission of original certificates. An NCR No. 180/2014 was also furnished by the respondent.

4. In response to the letter issued by the Administrative Section for verification of genuineness of certificates pertaining to Sanitary Inspector Diploma of the year 1984 as well as Senior School Examination Certificate 1984 issued vide S. No. DSSC/84 001500, Roll No.301991 dated June 15, 1984, the verification reports dated July 02, 2015 and July 30, 2015 were respectively received.

Also, letter dated June 24, 2015, was sent to Director/Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal regarding verification of Mark Sheet of Higher Secondary School submitted by the respondent bearing certificate `S No.236825 Roll No.1557766, in the name of Surender Kumar S/o Shri Ishwar Singh.

5. In response, letters dated December 18, 2015 and June 25, 2016, were received from the Office of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, wherein it was stated that upon comparison, discrepancies/variations have been observed qua the certificate forwarded by the department vis-a'-vis record of the Board. It was therein mentioned that as per record of the Board, Shri Surender Kumar S/o Shri Ishwar Singh having Roll No.157766, and Mark Sheet serial No.054283 appeared for Higher Secondary Examination in 1982 from Centre N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top