Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Ors vs Arjun Ghosh on 18 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
MAT 1493 of 2024
IA NO: CAN/2/2024
Union of India & ors.
vs.
Arjun Ghosh
For the Appellants : Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Sk. Mujibar Rahman, Advocate
Mr. Shayak Mitra, Advocate
Heard on : 18.09.2024
Judgment on : 18.09.2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Appeal is at the behest of the Union of India and its functionaries
and directed against the judgment and order dated February 6, 2024
passed in WPA 24017 of 2019.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge set
aside the order of dismissal from service imposed in a disciplinary
proceeding as against the private respondent on the ground of the private
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
respondent submitting fresh document to substantiate the claim that
High Court of
Calcutta
19 th of September
2024 05:34:18 PM
MAT 1493 of 2024
private respondent belonged to the Other Backward Class (OBC) and in
view of the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and
the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which according to the
learned Single Judge allows imposition of minor punishment if a document
submitted at the time of appointment is found to be fake.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that,
private respondent participated in the selection process on the basis of a
caste certificate which was subsequently discovered to be fake. As soon as
such discovery was made, disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In such
disciplinary proceeding the charge that the document submitted as the
caste certificate was established to be fake. Disciplinary Authority passed
a final order of dismissal from service as against the private respondent.
Private respondent preferred an appeal which was dismissed.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that,
since the caste certificate submitted by the private respondent at the time
of grant of appointment, was established to be a fake and since, private
respondent received the appointment on the basis of such a fake
document, learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits
that, the private respondent belongs to the OBC class. He submits that, a
fresh certificate was submitted to the authorities which requires
consideration. He also submits that, the Act of 1949 read with the Rules
MAT 1493 of 2024
of 1955 allows imposition of a minor punishment in such circumstances.
Moreover, the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to consider the
fresh certificate.
6. Private respondent participated in a selection process on the
basis of OBC certificate dated September 8, 2016. On the basis of such
certificate, private respondent was considered as an OBC category
candidate and granted appointment.
7. Authorities subsequently discovered that the certificate furnished
by the private respondent was fake. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated.
In such disciplinary proceeding, the private respondent was charged with
submitting a fake OBC certificate. In such disciplinary proceeding such
charge was established as against the private respondent. Disciplinary
Authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Private
respondent carried an appeal against such decision which was dismissed.
Aggrieved, private respondent filed a writ petition which resulted in the
impugned judgment and order.
8. Learned Single Judge considered the fact that, the private
respondent claimed to be belonged to the OBC category. Private
respondent produced another certificate to establish such claim before the
authority. Learned Single Judge proceeded to direct the appellant to verify
the subsequent caste certificate dated June 8, 2016 and in the event, the
same was found genuine, the Disciplinary Authority was directed to
MAT 1493 of 2024
impose minor punishment under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949.
Learned Single Judge also made it clear that, in the event subsequent
caste certificate dated June 8, 2016 was found to be fake or false, the
authorities were under no obligation to alter the punishment as imposed
upon the private respondent.
9. Learned Single Judge while issuing such directions relied upon
2016 SCC OnLine Cal 7495 (Subrata Mondal vs. Union of India &
Ors.). Subrata Mondal (supra) misunderstood and misapplied a Division
Bench judgment reported at 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 3538 (Registrar
General, High Court vs. Srinibas Prosad Shah) cited before it. Srinibas
Prosad Shah (supra) is a case where the requisite caste certificate was
not submitted at the time of appointment. It was subsequently submitted.
10. In the facts of the present case as well as in Subrata Mondal
(supra) a fake certificate was submitted for obtaining the appointment.
Appointment was obtained on the basis of a fake document. Appointment
so obtained cannot be sustained.
11. Contention of the private respondent that he worked for 16
years without blemish and that the Rules of 1955 as well as those
governing the solution process require verification of the antecedents of the
candidate is of no consequence. Length of service does not erase the
illegality if the entry is illegal. Failure to verify the documents submitted by
a candidate at the time of entry or subsequent discovery of document
MAT 1493 of 2024
submitted as false does not permit a candidate to submit a fake document
to obtain employment. Duty of good faith and fair dealing is ingrained in
any contract and more so in a contract of employment. One may profitably
refer to (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 156 (Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly) in this regard.
12. Neither at the stage of the leaving of the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge nor before us, on the basis of the materials made
available on record, it is established that, the initial certificate submitted
by the private respondent while obtaining his appointment, was not fake.
It is contended today that, the private respondent was not aware of the
certificate so submitted at the time of obtaining the employment was fake.
13. Such a plea in our view is specious. Private respondent
submitted a certificate on the basis of which he claimed himself to belong
to a particular caste. It is on such basis that, private respondent obtained
the employment. The document so submitted was conclusively established
to be a fake. Even today, there is no material to suggest otherwise.
14. In such circumstances, neither the disciplinary proceeding nor
the punishment imposed in such disciplinary proceeding can be faulted.
Appellant entered service on the basis of a document which is fake. Such
document relates to an essential qualification as to his claim for reserved
category consideration. It was considered in the reserved category on the
basis of such false document.
MAT 1493 of 2024
15. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment
and order dated February 6, 2024. Order of punishment imposed as
against the private respondent is reinstated.
16. MAT 1493 of 2024 along with connected application are
disposed of without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
17. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
CHC
