Credibility of certificates submitted by a government employee is crucial; the burden of proof lies on the employee regarding the legitimacy of their qualifications in disciplinary inquiries.

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 for claiming the following reliefs:

“ To quash the (a) Memo No.F/PTR/ADA/04/KLR/22-23 dated at Puttur the 24.01.2023, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A-8 and (b) Order No.SK/STA/9- 3/10/2023/I dated at Bengaluru – 560 001 the 01.08.2023, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure A10 and extend consequential benefits to the applicant accordingly and (ii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The same is filed based on the grounds and legal provisions as explained in paragraphs 5(i) to 5(vi) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in the Department of Posts as GDS MP, Marikuppam SO Kolar Division on 1.10.1981. She was taken on duty after verifying her SSLC marks card and other documents. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of MTS after verifying the certificates produced by her in terms of the order dated 22.8.2013.

3. Thereafter, on receipt of a complaint from an unknown person that she had produced a fake SSLC marks card at the time of her appointment, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, a charge sheet was framed against her that she produced fake marks card and certificates and obtained the job vide a memo dated 10.11.2022.

4. The applicant asserts that in the inquiry, the complainant was not examined and some irrelevant documents were produced, the contents of which were not proved. However, the Inquiry officer has held that the charge was proved against the applicant. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of her removal from service by an order dated 24.10.2023.

5. The applicant retired on superannuation on 30.04.2023. The appeal filed by the applicant dated 15.03.2023 against the said order has been dismissed by the respondent No.2 by an order dated 1.8.2023. Hence, based on the grounds explained, the applicant requests to allow her Original Application and grant her reliefs as claimed.

6. On notice, the respondents have filed their detailed reply statement wherein they do not contest the basic facts of the case, but they vehemently argued that they had conducted the inquiry through due process of law, giving ample opportunity of hearing to the applicant and as per the rules and procedures the inquiry concluded and as per the inquiry report, based on available evidences, appropriate orders were passed and as it is a case of false and bogus certificate production, appropriate penalties were imposed. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the applicant and so the Original Application should be dismissed for being without merit.

7. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant, but through a Memo, the applicant has filed following rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in her favour.

“1. State of M.P v. Bani Singh and another [1990 (2) LLJ 529 para 4]

2. State of Punjab & Others v. Chamanlal Goyal [(1995) (2) SLJ 126 (SC)] (paras 9,11 and 13)

3. State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Radhakrishnan [AIR 1998 SC 1833] (paras 19 and 20).

5. Mahadevan P.V. v. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board [2005(3) LLJ 527] (paras 5, 7 12 and 15) ”

8. The case came up for final hearing on 12.9.2024. Shri.A.R.Holla was present for the applicant and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty was present for the respondents and both were heard.

9. We have carefully gone throug