Shri Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 369 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the orders dated 24th November 1998 and 23rd September 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1296/93 whereby and whereunder the Original Application as also the Review Application filed by the petitioner were dismissed. In its order dated 24th November 1998, the learned Tribunal noticed that the petitioner herein had not been present before it on the earlier occasions on 12th January 1994, 3rd February 1994, 9th March 1994, 27th August 1998, 3rd November 1998 and 17th November 1998 and, the learned Tribunal, in the aforementioned situation, went into the merit of the case and held:

"3. We have perused the pleading and find that the applicant has not been able to rebut the charge of interpolation and forgery. The respondents have further stated that the applicant was proceeded against in accordance with D&A Rules and several opportunities were provided to him to defend against the charges. The doctor was shown the certificate dated 26.5.86 and he averred that the said certificate was tampered. After considering the inquiry report, the respondents passed the impugned order of removal. The appellant authority confirmed the order of disciplinary authority and the revision authorities have also dismissed his appeal as time barred."

An application for recalling the said order/review was filed inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has engaged one Shri Raval who had filed vakalatnama although earlier he had engaged Shri D.S. Mahendru.

2. According to the petitioner, Shri Raval could not appear on 24th November 1998 as his name was not shown in the cause list.

3. The learned Tribunal held as under:

"6. As the impugned order dated 24.11.98 was passed after hearing Respondents on merits, we as a Coordinate Division Bench are not empowered to restore the O.A. for fresh hearing on merits. We are unable to grant the prayer made by applicant in the M.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed."

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that had an opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioner, he could have shown that best evidence had been withheld by the department in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. The learned counsel, submitted that the witnesses who are examined before the enquiry officer, cannot be said to have proved the charge.

5. Our attention in this connection has also been drawn to the enquiry report.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that from a perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that a petitioner has, for all intent and purport, accepted his misconduct.

7. The petitioner was working with the respondent. He submitted a Medical Certificate in support of leave granted to him. On 27th May 1986, the genuineness of the said certificate was doubted (although he was allowed to join) and for verification thereof, an enquiry was made with the doctor concerned who in writing stated that the Fitness Certificate was issued on 5th April 1986 to the petitioner herein on his assertion that he had lost his previous certificate wherefor a duplicate certificate was issued to him. It was contended that the petitioner had altered the date. A complete report of the above case was given by the concerned authority.

8. Before the Enquiry Officer, two witnesses were examined. One of the witnesses stated that on seeing ADMO DSA Certificate, he felt doubt inasmuch as the said authority could issue a certificate only for 90 days but the said certificate had been issued for a period of 117 days. In that situation, a clarification was sought for whereupon it was stated that the petitioner remained under his treatment for 66 days from 30th January 1986 to 5th April 1986. Thus the petitioner by way of interpolation, extended leave for 51 days more.

9. The second witness stated that he permitted the petitioner to join his duties subject to verification of the said certificate and although the doctor had declared the petitioner as fit on 5th April 1986, he altered the date to 29th April 1986. Upon initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner went on unauthorized absence.

10. The Enquiry Officer noticed that the petitioner did not produce any defense witness. His statement had been recorded and in his statement he accepted that his doctor had issued the first certificate on 5th April 1986 and the second on 26th May 1986.

11. It was held that had the afore-mentioned statement of the petitioner been correct, he would have produced two certificate and not me. It was noticed that the petitioner had never contended that the first certificate was of 5th April 1986.

12. In that situation, it was held:

"Shri Ramesh Kumar had become fit on 5.4.86 but again he went on unauthorized absence and he made a false plea for issue of duplicate certificate on the pretext that he had lost the original certificate with the intention to cover the remaining period in the certificate dated 26.5.86. But due to excess period, CWS office felt some doubt and got the same verified from the office of DMO DAS and DMO DAS clarified that Ramesh Kumar Khallasi has altered the date."

Having regard to the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Enquiry Officer, we are of the opinion that his report cannot be said to be irrational so as to attract the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness.

13. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the order of the Tribunal is limited. The power of judicial review can be exercised only when the Tribunal has committed any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in its decision making process. A writ of certiorary, as is well known, can be issued when the Tribunal has entirely acted without jurisdiction or there exists an error apparent on the face of the record.

14. Having gone through the record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere therewith.

15. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.