Back
2021 Supreme(Jhk) 643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ.
Md. Islam Ansari, son of Maqsood Ali - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through General Manager and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 2960 of 2010
Decided On : 19-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohan Kumar Dubey
For the Respondent: Vijay Kumar Sinha
Headnote:
RLY services conduct Rules 1966 - Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) - Tribunal did not find any basis to interfere in appellate order whereby penalty of removal from service imposed upon applicant in disciplinary proceedings was upheld - On account of confusion due to change in name of school from proposed High School, applicant has been penalised for no reason - No proper opportunity to prove his defence have been accorded during enquiry proceedings which learned Tribunal failed to consider - Impugned order deserves to be set-aside and matter be remanded to Enquiry Officer to proceed afresh after due opportunity to petitioner - Respondent-Railways submits by reference to statement made in counter-affidavit that on allegations of submitting fake and false school certificate by petitioner, matter was enquired through Welfare Inspector, Railways - Headmaster stated that there is no such school i.e. High School at Bhowra and no such certificate has been issued from that school in favour of petitioner – Held, it appears from findings of Enquiry Officer that allegations were enquired into by employer through Welfare Inspector, Railways who appeared as a witness during departmental enquiry proceedings and substantiated charges that no such certificate was issued from concerned school - Petitioner got an opportunity to cross-examine him - However, non-examination of complainant in such a case is not of material relevance, since allegation of procuring employment on basis of a fake certificate is to be enquired into and decided upon by employer himself - Material witness has proved charge during departmental proceeding - Interference in findings of enquiry proceeding on grounds of insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence is not permissible under powers of judicial review, if Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority have arrived at a considered finding which cannot be shown to be perverse - Transfer certificate was found to be false - Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways.
2. Applicant is aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2010 passed in O.A. No. 71 of 2009 read with M. A. No. 25 of 2009, by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit court at Ranchi). Learned Tribunal by the impugned order refused to interfere in the order of removal dated 19th July, 2005 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.-2, Senior Divisional Operational Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, and also the memorandum of charges dated 11th February, 2003 and the enquiry report dated 22nd September, 2003 impugned therein. The learned Tribunal did not find any basis to interfere in the appellate order dated 06th November, 2007, whereby the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings was upheld.
3. Applicant was engaged as a casual Hot Weather Staff in Transportation Department of Dhanbad Division as a substitute in the scale of Rs. 750-940/- (RP) against day to day casualties, and vacancies of Group ‘D’ staff. On the basis of a complaint by one Md. Abdul Islam Ansari that the applicant had submitted a fake and false transfer certificate of having studied in High School Bhowra, Dhanbad (Annexure-2) and obtained the appointment, departmental proceedings were initiated on the following charges:
“That the said Sri MD. Islam Ansari while functioning as RR Bearer/GMO had submitted a fake and false school certificate (TC) dated 04.07.81 issued by High School Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in RLY.
This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part. Thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of RLY services conduct Rules 1966.
It reveals from the letter no DSC/MISC/Complain dated 10.07.02 of Sr. DPO/DHN enquiry report dated 06.05.02 of Sri Anup Kumar Welfare Inspector DHN letter no. 23/02 dated 20.03.02 of Head Master High School Bhowra, Dhanbad and School Certificate (TC) dated 01.07.81 submitted by Sri Md. Islam Ansari that Sri Ansari had submitted a fake and false School Certificate dated 04.07.81 issued by Head Master High School, Bhowra, Dhanbad in 1990 at the time of his engagement as hot weather staff and secured his initial appointment in Railway.
This is failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty on his part thereby he has contravened Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) of RLY Services Conduct Rules 1966.”
During departmental enquiry, the charges were found to be proved on the basis of enquiry report of Welfare Inspector, Railways examined as P.W. 1. The enquiry report was submitted on 11.02.2003 (Annexure-5). Petitioner got an opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority found his explanation unsatisfactory and imposed the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 29.07.2005 (Annexure-7). Appellate authority by its order dated 06.11.2007 has confirmed the penalty (Annexure-10).
Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the instant O.A. for quashing of the order of penalty and the appellate order as also the memorandum of charges and the enquiry report. Learned Tribunal Considered the submission of the parties and the pleading on record and held as under:
“8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant emphasized the point that no opportunity was given to the applicant at the disciplinary enquiry stage to contradict the evidence and the documents produced by the presenting officer. But from the perusal of records as filed by both the applicant himself and by the respondents, it is amply clear that sufficient opportunity at all stages of enquiry have been accorded to the applicant. His appeal has also been considered in detail, and a reasoned and speaking order
