CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

O.A./100/3366/2013

New Delhi, this the 20th day of December, 2018

Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Shri Rishi Pal

S/o Late Shri Dharam Singh

Aged about 57 yrs.

R/o 492/B/2, Gali No.7, Mahabir Block,

Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara,

Delhi-110032 ….Applicant

(Through Dr. N. Gautam and Ms. Swati Gautam, Advocates)

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Delhi Transport Corporation

DTC Hqrs., I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002

2. The Dy. Chief General Manager (Security)

Through CMD-DTC,

Delhi Transport Corporation

I.P. Estate, N. Delhi-110002

3. The Manager (A) Security

Through CMD-DTC,

Delhi Transport Corporation

I.P. Estate, N. Delhi-110002

... Respondents

(Through Ms. Kamini Tandon, Advocate)

ORDER (Oral)

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

The applicant joined the service of the Delhi

Transport Corporation (DTC) as Security Guard (SG) on

2

OA 3366/2013

1.02.1979. He was promoted to the post of Hawaldar in

1988. The next promotion is to the post of Assistant

Security Inspector (ASI). The qualification stipulated for

that post is Matriculation. On the basis of a certificate

submitted by the applicant, the respondents promoted

him as ASI on 21.03.2005.

2. A charge sheet dated 27.07.2012 was issued to the

applicant alleging that on verification it was found that

the

matriculation

certificate

with

roll

no.1276963

submitted by him is found to be fake. He was required to

submit explanation as to why suitable disciplinary action

should not be taken against him.

3. The applicant contends that he made a request to

supply certain documents to him and since these were

not supplied, he was unable to submit his explanation. A

Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 27.02.2013 was served

upon him requiring to explain as to why punishment of

removal from service and forfeiture of gratuity be not

imposed upon him. This was followed by an order dated

5.04.2013 through which the applicant was removed

from service. The appeal preferred by him was rejected by

the Appellate Authority (AA) on 22.08.2013. Hence, this

OA.

3

OA 3366/2013

4. The applicant contends that the report of the so-

called inquiry said to have been caused against him was

not furnished to him at all and even the departmental

proceedings are totally vitiated in as much as no

documents were furnished to him. It is contended that

the Disciplinary Authority (DA) proceeded to impose the

punishment without there being a report of the Inquiry

Officer (IO) and a serious infirmity has crept into the

proceedings.

5. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the

OA. It is stated that the applicant did not submit his

explanation though a charge sheet was served upon him

and that in the course of inquiry, witnesses were

examined and the applicant has also cross-examined

them. They contend that the IO submitted his report on

conclusion of the inquiry, holding the charge is proved. It

is

stated

that

the

punishment

was

imposed

commensurate to the gravity of the charge framed

against the applicant.

6. We heard Dr. N. Gautam for the applicant and Ms.

Kamini Tandon for the respondents.

4

OA 3366/2013

7. There is no controversy about the appointment of

the applicant as SG or his promotion as Hawaldar. It is

only in relation to his promotion to the post of ASI that

the dispute has arisen. Pass in matriculation, is essential

for that post. The applicant submitted a certificate with

roll no. 1276963, issued by the Uttar Pradesh Board of

High

School

and

Intermediate

Education,

UP.

Permission is also said to have been accorded to him by

the appointing authority, to undertake further studies,

through order dated 13.10.1988.

8. In the charge memo, the following allegation was

made:

“Your High School Certificate was verif