High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed challenging the orders whereby the petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as a Constable GD in CISF after qualifying a competitive examination held by Staff Selection Commission on 3rd April, 2017. The petitioner served the department to the satisfaction of his superior officers till the passing of the impugned order. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had secured employment by producing a false and fabricated OBC certificate. The petitioner had applied for the Caste certificate with the help of some private person sitting outside the Court. When the petitioner came to know that the same was not issued by the competent authority, the petitioner immediately applied for another OBC certificate and same was issued to the petitioner on 30th March, 2017 by the competent authority. He pointed out that these facts were in the knowledge of the concerned authority and at the time of his joining the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate dated 30th March, 2017.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet vide representation dated 17th September, 2019 denying the charges and explaining his position. However, the disciplinary authority appointed the inquiry officer without considering the same. He stated that during the inquiry the petitioner clearly stated that he was allowed to join on the basis of OBC certificate which had been issued by Rajouri Garden Tehsildar and not the certificate dated 18th May, 2016.
He further stated that the petitioner also requested the authorities to verify the subsequent Caste certificate from the concerned Tehsildar. It was submitted that the inquiry officer without verifying the correctness of the OBC certificate submitted his report and that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defence. He stated that disciplinary authority failed to consider the contentions of the petitioner and passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that respondent has filed an affidavit and a letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the said letter, it has been admitted that the Certificate dated 30th March, 2017 has been verified at E-District Portal available with the Sub-Division, Rajouri Garden and it has been found that the same has been issued by the proper authority. In the said letter, it is also stated that as per the verification report, the applicant belongs to OBC Gurjar Caste.
HC stated that “since the petitioner belongs to OBC Gurjar Caste, there is a ring of truth in what the petitioner has stated in the present writ petition. In any event, the petitioner being an OBC is entitled to the benefit of his caste. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service within four weeks of uploading of the order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of salary for the period that he has not worked i.e., from the date of removal of service till the date of rejoining. However, the said period shall be counted for promotion, seniority and pay fixation purposes.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla
Case Title: Ex-CT Bajrang Lal v. Union of India
Case Details: W.P.(C) 11265/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
