An appointment secured by misrepresentation or submission of fake documents is void ab initio, and the termination of such an employee following due disciplinary inquiry does not warrant judicial interference by an appellate forum.

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Smt. Richa Majhi is the widow of Late Jagannath Majhi, who had originally filed this OA and died during pendency of this OA. After the death of Late Jagannath Majhi, Smt. Richa Majhi has been substituted in his place in this OA vide order dated 22.08.2024.

2. Brief facts of the case are that having been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and after successful completion of training, Late Jagannath Majhi [for the sake of convenient, hereinafter referred as applicant] was issued with offer of appointment dated 30.10.1993 for the post of Semi Skilled Worker w.e.f. 20.10.1993. While the matter stood thus, he was issued with the charge sheet dated 28.07.2014 as under:

“You are charged with having committee the following acts of misconduct:

1. Giving false Information at the time of employment.

2. Intentionally giving false information prejudicial to the interest of the Management.

The above charges are based on the following allegations:

"On the basis of your self declaration dated 20/04/1993, where you have declared yourself as a local displaced person against Khata No. 7 of Mauza Laing, you have been offered the post of Semi-Skilled-Worker (S 01) in Rourkela Steel Plant vide Offer of appointment No. PLR-39/21039 dated 30/10/1993. On verification it is found that you have no family relationship with Late Petra Kishan, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 7 of Mauza Laing Therefore, at the time of joining in Rourkela Steel Plant you have submitted a fake displaced certificate bearing no.4921/1983 purportedly to have been issued by TAHASINDAR, RAJGANGPUR. Hence you have given false declaration for the purpose of seeking employment in RSP."

The above amounts to an act of misconduct in accordance with Clause 28 (iv) and 28(xxviii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company applicable to you.”

3. Applicant submitted his reply, which having not found satisfactory by the authority, inquiry was conducted. The IO found the charges “established” vide its report dated 09.04.2016. The copies of the proceedings and findings of Enquiry Committee was supplied to the applicant vide letter dated 18.04.2021. After considering the representation submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16.05.2016 imposed the punishment of “Removal” from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred by the applicant did not yield any fruitful result as the Appellate Authority vide letter dated 11.07.2016 upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, applicant has filed this OA challenging the charge sheet dated 28.07.2014, order of punishment of “Removal” dated 16.05.2016 and the appellate order dated 11.07.2016. As in interim measure, the applicant had prayed to allow him to continue in his present post and to retain the quarter allotted to him. This Bench vide order dated 28.07.2016 observed that since order of removal has already been passed on 16.05.2016, the interim prayer to allow him to continue in his present post cannot be granted and will lie over, however, it was directed that if the applicant has not yet been evicted from the quarters, in question, then he may be allowed to continue till the next date of listing.

4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that after completion of more than 21 years of satisfactory service, applicant was issued with the charge sheet dated 28.07.2014 on the allegation of giving false information at the time of his employment. The applicant in his reply, sought a copy of the self declaration given by him for filing final show cause reply