Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 474
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J, SANTOSH MEHRA, A
Shri. Jaisur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00549/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri P. Sreedhara
For the Respondents: Shri K. Gajendra Vasu
Disciplinary authority's decision to remove an employee for submitting fake educational certificates was upheld, emphasizing adherence to recognized eligibility criteria.
Headnote:(A) Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India - Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge of submitting fake educational certificate - The impugned orders of removal were challenged on grounds of illegality and lack of due process. The applicant's certificates from a non-recognized board were deemed invalid, contradicting eligibility criteria. (Paras 2, 5, 10)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - During disciplinary proceedings, the opportunity to present defense should be upheld, and the decision must be based on a fair assessment of evidence. Non-compliance led to dismissal of the OA. (Paras 2, 3, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was removed from service for producing a fake educational qualification certificate, which was later confirmed to be non-genuine by the education department. The applicant contended that he acted in good faith, unaware of the non-recognition of the board at the time of application.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry was valid, and the penalty imposed was in line with established procedures, confirming that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria based on the ineligibility of the issuing board.
Issues: Whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for his appointment based on the educational qualification, and if the disciplinary actions taken were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal found that the applicant's educational board was not recognized at the time of application, and as such, the removal from service was lawful. Even if good faith was presumed, eligibility concerns justified the decision.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background to application and disciplinary action. (Para 2) |
| 2. details of charges and applicant's defense. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterarguments from the applicant. (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents' stand on educational qualification. (Para 6) |
| 5. conclusion of the tribunal on validity of the removal. (Para 10) |
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“a) CALL for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Order bearing reference No. BDR/ PF / 64483 / PC dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority Respondent No.4 as at ANNEXURE A-12 and Order bearing reference No.TC/10070/1/47/PC dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Respondent No.3 as at ANNEXURE A-14, peruse the same and on perusal;
(b) ISSUE a Writ, Order or directions in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the Order bearing reference No. BDR/ PF /64483/ PC dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority Respondent No.4 as at ANNEXURE A-12 and Order bearing reference No.TC/10070/1/47/PC dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority Respondent No.3 as at ANNEXURE A-14, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(c) ISSUE a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement.”
2. The facts in in a nutshell are as follows
The applicant was appointed as HKS on 22.09.2017. In response to a complaint submitted by an employee regarding submission of fake certificates, a scrutiny was done and it was found that a few employees including the applicant had submitted fake educational certificates. The same was also confirmed by the clarification received from Directorate of Education. Subsequently, Board of Inquiry was conducted and based on the report of the inquiry a charge memo was issued to the applicant. On the basis of directions of the High Court of Karnataka, denovo inquiry was conducted and based on the findings, the applicant was removed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal of the applicant against the Orders of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the applicant has approached this Tribunal through this OA for relief.
3. (i) The counsel for applicant submits that the applicant, in response to the Employment Notification participated in the selection process & was selected / appointed to the post of Safaiwala (U/R) on temporary basis vide letter No. BDR/660/2/PC dt. 21.09.2017 and was placed under probation for a period of Two years.
(ii) While the things stood thus, the Respondent No.4 initiated the process of verification of Educational Qualification Certificate of the applicant. The Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi vide letter No.DR/BHSE/957898 DELHI dated 09.07.2019 confirmed the validity of its certificate/marks card issued to the applicant in 2016 as genuine. (iii) However, the Respondent No.4, based on the Second Respondent's report dated 01.06.2021 that the verification of Secondary School Examination Certificate held by the applicant is found to be not genuine, issued the Order of Termination with one month's notice without holding any inquiry. This Order of termination was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench, which vide its order dated 23.06.2022 passed in WP No.201848/2021 quashed the above notice/order of termination dated 08.09.2021 granting liberty to the respondents to take action in accordance with law.
(iv) The Counsel for Applicant states that Respondent No.4 - Disciplinary Authority issued the Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 imputing that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi which issued the SSC Certificate is not a recognized Board as clarified by Dte Edn, Govt of
