Vijay Pratap vs Food Corp. Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14357 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98618
 
Reserved on : 15.03.2023
 
Delivered on : 08.05.2023
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 33505 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap
 
Respondent :- Food Corp. Of India And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kirti Singh,Shishir Kumar,Somesh Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- N.P. Singh,Amit Kumar,S.C.,Satya Prakash
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.09.2008 through which the penalty of dismissal has been imposed upon the petitioner by the competent authority.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2008, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2009.

4. The factual matrix of the matter relates to the petitioner who sought the appointment on the basis of submitting forged and fabricated documents relating to his Educational Certificates as well as his Caste Certificates. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Peon in the Department of the respondents on 31.03.1987 and he was posted at F.C.I. Store at Ghazipur under the Manager (Store) F.C.I., Ghazipur.

5. As per the proceedings of selection over the post of Peon, the Caste and Educational Certificates in original was to be submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment only.

6. The petitioner was posted in terms of the appointment order issued in his favour and thereafter the Educational documents i.e. in shape of Transfer Certificate issued by the Principal of Narsingh Inter College, Bairampur, Azamgarh and Caste Certificate pertaining to the Scheduled Tribes Community was got verified by the competent authorities of the Department, whereupon the adverse report was submitted by the officers conducting the verification and it was reported that neither Caste Certificate furnished by the petitioner nor his educational certificates were genuine.

7. A proper show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner on 08.07.2004 through which proper reply was called from the petitioner with regard to showing his bonafide along with the defense over the report as submitted by the officers conducting the verification of Educational and Caste Certificate as submitted by the petitioners. In pursuance to the show cause notice dated 08.07.2004, the petitioner preferred his reply dated 16.08.2004.

8. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1971 on the charges that the petitioner obtained job of Peon under the category of S.C./S.T. Category by playing fraud and on the basis of fake and fabricated qualification certificates specifically in shape of Transfer Certificate issued by the Educational Institution.

9. After receiving the copy of the chargesheet dated 10.01.2007 the petitioner replied the same in detail and participated in the inquiry by way of extending full cooperation to the Investigating Officer which culminated into inquiry report dated 17.12.2007 by which all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found true, although the petitioner denied such report and has filed another Investigating Officer's report dated 06.06.2008, but later on the Office denied his signatures as mentioned in the report dated 06.06.2008 and as such, the same has never been taken into consideration by the authorities which adjudicated the matter of the petitioner.

10. The disciplinary authority after considering the records of the case, the report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 17.12.2007, imposed penalty of dismissal vide order dated 03.09.2008 against which his appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2009 which arises cause of action in favour of the petitioner for preferring the instant petition.

11. Both the above mentioned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has been challenged on several other grounds, inter-alia, on the report submitted by Investigating Officer dated 06.06.2008, wherein the transfer certificate as submitted by the petitioner has been shown as genuine one.

12. At the time of raising the argument on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the report dated 06.06.2008 through which the bonafide of the petitioner was proved, wherein the Transfer Certificate as submitted by the petitioner has been reported to be the genuine one, under the verification submitted by the concerned Principal of the Institution. So far as the Caste Certificate is concerned, the only statement as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whatever Certificate has been sought by the petitioner and issued by the concerned authority has been submitted at the time of seeking appointment over the post of Peon before the responding Department, but the same has been sought after due process of law and as such, the same cannot be treated as fake one.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and diluted the precise arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of retreating the facts that the petitioner has filed a fake and fabricated investigation report dated 06.06.2008 on record just for misleading to verify the authenticity of the report dated 06.06.2008.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents sought the indulgence of this Court over the letter dated 12.08.2009 which is already appended along with the counter affidavit as Annexure No. 9 to Counter Affidavit wherein a categorical reply has been given by the authority whose report has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

15. By bare perusal of the letter dated 12.08.2009, it is apparent from the submissions as made by the reporting officer, wherein he has submitted that he has filed only one report i.e. 17.12.2007 which contained his signatures in English on every page and as per the findings all the charges were found true.

16. Moreover, the Investigating Officer has also stated that the said documents is forged and fabricated documents and the report filed by the petitioner does not contain his signature in English nor the correct date as 17.12.2007.

17. On the specific verification as conducted with regard to Caste Certificate as submitted by the petitioner, the report of the concerned Tehsildar which clearly demonstrated the sanctity and genuineness of the Caste Certificate as forged one and never issued from the office of the concerned Tehsildar and as such, there is no specific strong denial over the report as submitted by the concerned Tehsildar except the change of the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District which hardly have any effect on the records available in the concerned Tehsil.

18. The vital aspect which is mandated from the statutory provisions contained under "Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation Act, 1971" specifically for conduction of departmental inquiry, it is available in the records that the petitioner has already participated in the inquiry after being given ample opportunity for representing himself and the same has been availed while defending himself from the charges as levelled against him through the chargesheet. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not participated in the disciplinary proceedings as initiated by the competent authority of the Department, whereas full opportunity has already been afforded to the petitioner for defending himself.

19. Learned counsel for the respondents substantiated his arguments by concluding that the petitioner has been dismissed mainly on two grounds firstly, on supply of fake and fabricated Caste Certificate and secondly, on supply of fake and fabricated qualifications Certificate at the time of seeking appointment for the post of peon in the responding departments.

20. Moreover, the petitioner was given opportunity of show cause twice to rebut the allegations, but both the time the petitioner supported the documents and heavily relied upon the same, which has already been submitted at the time of seeking appointment over the post of Peon in the responding Department, but on the contrary all the documents as submitted by the petitioner through their issuing authority i.e. Tehsildar and the Principal of the College, both have denied to have issued the alleged certificates by them and as such, the Investigation Officer considered the above charges on the preferred documents and held them as fake and fabricated.

21. As per the law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, mere non supply of inquiry report will not vitiate the departmental proceedings unless delinquent shows how such non supply of Investigating Officers report has been prejudiced to his case, but since only two allegations were alleged in the chargesheet and in the Investigating Officer's Report for which the petitioner had already been given opportunity, but he failed to satisfy the Department about the genuineness of the document in dispute.

22. While framing his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the Case of State of U.P. and Others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772; Kavita Salunke versus State of Maharashtra and Others 2012 (4) ESC 464 (SC) and Raj Nath Singh versus State of U.P. and Others 2010 (2) UPLBEC 1128.

23. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the three judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Union of India and Others versus Bishamber Das Dogra, 2009 (122) FLR 578; Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus Madhulika Guruprasad, 2008 (118) FLR 879; and The Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Bhilai Plant, Bhilai versus Mahesh Kumar Gonnade and Others 2022 All. C.J. 1981.

24. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is broadly on the basis of determining the disciplinary inquiry as nonest due to non supply of the required documents by the delinquent employee of the Department as held in State of U.P. and Others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772, but it is not the case of the petitioner that the documents pertaining to the inquiry officer, has not been served upon the petitioner. Moreover, the entire inquiry has been initiated only on two charges levelled against the petitioner and for both the charges the documents under question has already been provided by the petitioner himself on verification. Both the documents were declared as forged and fabricated by the issuing authority himself and as such, no further documents were essential to be required by the petitioner for participating in the disciplinary proceedings.

25. In case of Kavita Salunke (Supra), the caste pertaining to the appellant in the above mentioned case is having very thin line separation with the other case which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribes and clarification circular issued by the State Government of Maharashtra from time to time which culminated into issuing the Scheduled Tribes Certificate in favour of the appellant.

26. Considering this vital fact which does not disclose any forgery committed by petitioner or the appellant on part of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the establishment not to terminate the services, but restrain the appellant for using the same Scheduled Tribes Certificate for any other purpose in future.

27. In the instant matter, there is hardly any ambiguity with regard to the Caste of the petitioner which resembles with any Caste pertaining to the Scheduled Tribes and such, the benefit of the case of Kavita Solanki (Supra) will be defiance in the law.

28. The another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the termination of services as rendered by the petitioner for more than 33 years has been held illegal. Since, there was no effort or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner wherein the petitioner categorically disclosed his qualifications only as High School and not as Intermediate. The impression given by the complainant that the petitioner has obtained the forged marksheet was not found to be correct, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different to the present one.

29. As per the inquiry conducted by the competent authority of the Department, it has been proved that at the time of verification, both the documents which were essential and required for seeking appointment over the post of Peon in the Department of the responding authorities were forged and fabricated.

30. All the above mentioned three judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished and as such, none is applicable in the present case.

31. Moreover, the instant matter is squarely covered by the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents.

32. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Order Date :-08.05.2023

SY