IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH At SRINAGAR
Rajnesh Oswal, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
Sardarni Deep Kour & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 1637 of 2009(O&M)
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Fraudulent Employment - Central Civil Services - Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The judgment discusses the fraudulent employment of the deceased petitioner, the violation of rules in the conduct of the enquiry, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased petitioner was removed from service for obtaining employment fraudulently by producing a fake certificate. He argued that the act was not committed in his capacity as a Government servant and that the enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He also contended that the punishment was disproportionate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased petitioner obtained employment fraudulently and that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules. The court also held that the punishment was not disproportionate to the act.
Issues: Fraudulent employment, Violation of enquiry rules, Proportionality of punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The employment obtained by fraud was void ab initio, the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules, and the punishment was not disproportionate to the act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The petitioner, namely, Sarwan Singh had filed this writ petition for quashing the judgment dated 18.05.2009, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Jammu) had dismissed the application filed by the deceased petitioner against the order dated 15.03.1989, whereby the penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the deceased petitioner. He had also prayed for the quashing of order dated 15.03.1989 with a further a prayer for directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate the deceased petitioner with all the consequential benefits. It needs to be noted here that the original petitioner expired during the pendency of this petition and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 13.12.2017.
2. The deceased petitioner had filed this petition inter alia on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the act for which the deceased petitioner was removed from service was not done in the capacity as a Government servant but as an ordinary citizen and as such, Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was not applicable, the entire proceedings were conducted by the respondents 1 to 3 contrary to the Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the punishment imposed upon the deceased petitioner was disproportionate. It was also stated by the deceased petitioner that on 12.10.1988, no proceedings took place but a piece of typed paper was given to the deceased petitioner to sign and same was used during the proceedings of the enquiry.
3. Response stands filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the deceased petitioner had obtained employment by misrepresentation in the year, 1979 by producing a school leaving certificate in which he was shown to have passed 8th Class qualification, whereas the fact remains that he never qualified 8th class and produced fake 8th class certificate and had he not submitted the same, he would not have been selected at all for the post. It was further stated that during the enquiry proceedings, the deceased petitioner himself submitted an application dated 12.10.1988 instead of filing any written statement, thereby admitting his guilt. The petitioner thereafter was removed from service vide order impugned dated 15.03.1989 and there has been no violation of any Rule of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
4. Mr. K.S. Johal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the alleged act for which the deceased petitioner was removed from service was not committed by the deceased petitioner being a Government servant and as such, he could not have been proceeded under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He further argued that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the Rule 14 of the of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
5. On the contrary, Mr. L.K. Moza, learned CGSC appearing for the official respondents, vehemently argued that there has been no violation of any fundamental right of the deceased petitioner and the deceased petitioner was removed from the service after following the mandate of the relevant rules.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the deceased petitioner was selected as MT Driver Grade-II by the Board of Directors on 19.02.1979. He had obtained the said employment on the basis of a certificate showing that he had passed 8th class but in fact he had not passed the 8th class. The Central Bureau of Investigation on 31.12.1982 registered a case against the deceased petitioner that he had not passed the 8th class school examination and he by fraudulent means, obtained the appointment as driver with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The charge sheet was produced against the deceased petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 29.09.1983 and the pet
Fraud vitiates all proceedings, and the punishment imposed should not be disproportionate to the act.
In the absence of confirmation of service and pendency of departmental process to verify caste certificate, protection against ouster as per Kavita Solunke and Shalini judgments is not applicable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of punishment must adhere to legal principles of proportionality and judicial review. The punishme....
Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, bift is directed against the “decision-making process The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisd....
The judgment establishes the principle that service termination without affording a reasonable opportunity to defend and without following the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of Indi....
Removal from service post-criminal conviction not automatic under Rule 19(i) CCS(CCA) Rules; requires disciplinary authority's active consideration of all circumstances, effective representation oppo....
The court emphasized the importance of affording an opportunity of hearing and conducting a departmental inquiry before imposing penalties on employees, in compliance with statutory provisions and co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.