Appointments based on false information or incorrect community certificates are not valid, and forfeiture of gratuity may apply under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in G.A.No.10 of 2015 and the order passed therein dated 09.08.2016 and thereafter confirmed by the first respondent in G.A.No.7 of 2016 dated 30.06.2017 and quash the same with regard to the claim of the third respondent for payment of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972.)

1. The order of the second respondent in G.A.No.10 of 2015 dated 09.08.2016, which is confirmed by the first respondent in G.A.No.7 of 2016 dated 30.06.2017, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is the New India Assurance Company Limited. The writ petitioner states that the third respondent joined the services of the writ petitioner-organisation as an Assistant during the year 1979 under the Reserved Category Vacancy and she enclosed a Community Certificate stating that she belongs to Aadhi Dravidar Community. Since the School Leaving Certificate of the third respondent showed her religion as 'Christian', the third respondent was called upon to submit her Caste Certificate. Pursuant to such communication, the third respondent produced a Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 06.08.1979 stating that she belongs to Aadhi Dravidar Community. Based on such Certificate, an order of appointment was issued on 06.08.1979. A condition was imposed at the appointment stating that the third respondent knowingly or unknowingly furnishes incorrect or false particulars for suppression of material information, she would be disqualified and her appointment is liable to be cancelled and she will be dismissed from service without any notice. The third respondent-employee accepted the letter of appointment with the abovesaid conditions and joined the services of the writ petitioner-company, namely, The New India Assurance Company Limited.

3. A complaint was received by the writ petitioner-organisation stating that the third respondent does not belong to Aadhi Dravidar Community. On verification of the school certificate of the third respondent, which showed that she belongs to Christian Community. A show cause notice dated 08.03.2000 was issued to the third respondent stating that she has furnished a false information about her caste for which the third respondent submitted a reply dated 02.05.2000. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 17.05.2004 was issued to the third respondent invoking the provisions of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The third respondent submitted her written statement of defence and thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a domestic enquiry was conducted.

4. While-so, the three member District Level Vigilance Committee went into the authenticity of the claim made by the third respondent and examined as to whether she belongs to Aadhi Dravidar Community or not. The third respondent also participated in the proceedings before the Competent Committee and the said Committee submitted its report on 21.12.2009, holding that the third respondent is not entitled to be considered as a candidate for Aadhi Dravidar Community. Accordingly, cancelled the Aadhi Dravidar Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 06.08.1979. The third respondent did not challenge the said cancellation order issued by the District Level Vigilance Committee. Therefore, the report of the Committee became final.

5. In view of the fact that the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar was cancelled by the District Level Vigilance Committee, the writ petitioner-employer dismissed the third respondent from service by an order dated 12.04.2010. The third respondent challenged the said order of dismissal by way of an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was also rejected by a speaking order.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner secured appointmen