Lallan Jha vs Union Of India & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7110 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 12.12.2012

W.P.(C) 7699/2012 & CM 19457-59/2012


LALLAN JHA                                                             ..... Petitioner

                      versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                               ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Jawahar Raja.
For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh for respondent No.1
                      Mr Sushant Kumar for respondent Nos.2 to 4.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.12.2011

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

in OA No.2286/2010 as also the order dated 07.02.2012 whereby the

petitioner's review application (RA No.32/2012) was rejected by the said

Tribunal.

2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Life Guard at Ashok Hotel,

New Delhi on 21.02.1989. In that application he had indicated his

educational qualification as "High School Pass". He was offered

employment through a letter dated 25.03.1989 which contained the terms

and conditions of the employment. Initially he was appointed as Life Guard

on contract basis for a period of six months subject to production of original

documents. It is relevant to point out that the offer letter which had been

given to him specifically indicated that if there was any concealment of any

information or if any information furnished by him at the time of

appointment was proved to be false his service was liable to be terminated.

3. After completion of six months the petitioner applied for regular

employment and he was given regular employment through a letter dated

26.05.1990. Subsequently, after several years a complaint was received by

the respondent regarding the genuineness of the matriculation certificate-

cum-mark sheet submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment. The

said matriculation certificate-cum-mark sheet had purportedly been issued by

the Haryana Vidyalaya Shiksha Board, Bhiwani. Upon verification, it was

found that the said matriculation certificate-cum-mark sheet had not at all

been issued by the said Haryana Vidyalaya Shiksha Board and that the same

was bogus and that the Roll No.24047 had also been allotted to some other

private candidate by the name of Ms Neelam Rani who had appeared in that

examination but had been declared unsuccessful.

4. Thereafter on 26.12.2005 a charge sheet-cum-suspension order was

issued to the petitioner by the respondent. The said charge sheet-cum-

suspension order categorically mentioned as under:-

"After completion of six months, Sh.Lallan Jha applied for regular employment for the post of Life Guard. He claimed his educational qualification as MATRIC PASS. He produced a Mark-sheet to this effect in original purportedly issued by the Haryana Vidyalaya Shiksha Board, Bhiwani dated 10th June 1982 signed by the Secretary, having S.No.H37758, Roll No.24047 describing Sh.Lallan Jha as having qualified the Matriculation examination held by the Board in March 1982 from Government High Secondary Boys School, Faridabad in Second Division.

Again on the basis of this fake certificate Sh.Lallan Jha was given an offer of regular appointment for the post of Life Guard in the Ashok Hotel vide letter no.PB-73(30) dated 26th May 1990. He accepted and signed the offer of employment. In the prescribed form for employment, Sh.Lallan Jha, has given a certificate duly signed by him to the effect that the particulars furnished by him were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Consequently, Sh.Lallan Jha's services were regularized with effect from 8th May 1990 and he is still continuing in the employment of Ashok Hotel.

Sh.Lallan Jha did not produce the original certificate except this Mark-sheet. So during the process of verification of this Mark-sheet towards Sh.Lallan Jha's having qualified matriculation examination in 1982 from Haryana Rajya Shiksha board, Bhiwani, I have come to know from the letter of Sh.Deshbandhu, Superintendence Examination Cell Haryana Vidyalaya Shiksha Board, Bhiwani that no such

Mark-sheet has been issued by the Board. The mark-sheet produced for gaining the employment by Sh.Lallan Jha is a manufactured and forged one. The Superintendent, Examination Cell, has confirmed under his letter no.2579/VER/E dated 12.04.2005 that the Roll No.24047, which this mark-sheet bears, was allotted to one private candidate of the District Karnal, Miss Neelam Rani, D/o Sh.Ram Krishan, Date of Birth 14.6.1961. She appeared in the examination and was declared unsuccessful."

5. In response to the charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated

26.12.2005 the petitioner sent a reply to the General Manager, Ashok Hotel,

New Delhi through a letter dated 24.05.2006. In that reply the petitioner

nowhere stated that the fake certificate from the Haryana Board had not been

submitted by him. He also did not state that he had not done matriculation

from the Haryana Board but had done matriculation from the Bihar Board.

On the contrary he stated that the appointment had been offered to him and

he joined the said post after full verification of the documents as stated

including the certificate carrying the date of birth, education qualification

etc. In fact he took the plea that once it has been verified at the time of his

appointment, there was no occasion for a repeat of the verification process

and that, too, after five years. He even cited certain decisions which,

according to him, supported his contention that verification ought to be done

within five years and certainly not beyond five years.

6. In sum and substance, it is apparent that on the first opportunity that

the petitioner got to respond to the charge against him of having submitted a

fake certificate from the Haryana Board, he had not responded by stating that

he did not matriculate from the Haryana Board but had matriculated from the

Bihar Board and that the certificate of the Haryana Board had not been

submitted by him.

7. Thereafter, the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry

proceedings took place which culminated in the report of the enquiry officer

dated 19.05.2007. We may point out that even before the enquiry officer no

certificate from the Bihar Board had been produced by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the disciplinary authority concurred with the finding of the

enquiry officer which was against the petitioner and passed a penalty order

dated 21.05.2007 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The

appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner by an order dated

11.01.2008. We may point out that at the stage of the appeal before the

appellate authority the petitioner had taken the stand that he had actually not

matriculated from Haryana Board but had done his matriculation from Bihar

and he had supposedly produced a certificate issued by Bihar Vidhyalaya

Pariksha Samiti indicating that he had cleared Class- X in the year 1981.

That certificate was a duplicate of the purported original certificate. It was

therefore contended by the petitioner at this stage that since he already had a

certificate from the Bihar Board, there was no occasion for him to have

submitted a forged certificate from Haryana. Anyhow, as stated above, the

appellate authority rejected the petitioner's appeal by the order dated

11.01.2008.

8. Being aggrieved by the appellate authority's order the petitioner filed

a writ petition before this court being WP(C) No.6253/2008. That was

subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and the matter was renumbered as

T.A No.396/2009. That TA was disposed of by the Tribunal by an order

dated 23.11.2009 directing the appellate authority to reconsider the matter.

Thereafter, the appellate authority reconsidered the appeal and passed an

order on 17.02.2010 rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

9. The petitioner once again went before the Tribunal by way of OA

No.2286/2010 wherein the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 dismissing the

petitioner's said original application was passed. The review application

bearing RA No.32/2012 was also dismissed by the order dated 07.02.2012.

10. The only issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner before us is that the appellate authority ought to have considered

the certificate issued by the Bihar Board and if that had been done, then the

petitioner would not be liable to be punished inasmuch as he would then

have had the requisite qualification of matriculation at the time of initial

appointment. He also submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner

to have submitted a false and fake certificate of the Haryana Board when he,

in fact, possessed a certificate from the Bihar Board. He also submitted that

there was no evidence that it was he who had submitted the Haryana Board

certificate.

11. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents and they

have taken us through the various documents which have been placed on

record including the first response given by the petitioner by virtue of his

reply dated 24.05.2006 to which we have already alluded to above.

12. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and

after examining the record we find that no interference is called for in the

Tribunal's orders which are impugned before us. The Tribunal had

concluded that it is difficult to give credence to the contentions of the

petitioner as there would be no one else who would stand to gain except the

petitioner himself from the mark sheet placed in his personal file. The

Tribunal also concluded that the petitioner would not have been taken into

employment and subsequently regularized without a proper document

showing that he had fulfilled the basic requirement of being high school

pass. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, it was the petitioner alone who

would stand to gain by submitting the certificate. It is not in dispute that the

mark sheet of the Haryana Board was in the personal file of the petitioner.

The said mark sheet pertained to the petitioner. The Tribunal was also of the

view that the charge against the petitioner specifically dealt with the issue of

furnishing the forged and fake mark sheet from Haryana and it has been

established that the mark sheet was fake and that the petitioner had not

matriculated from Haryana. The Tribunal also held that the story put together

by the petitioner before the appellate authority and before the Tribunal was

an after-thought.

13. We agree with these conclusions and we would also like to point out

that the petitioner's story does not have a ring of truth for the simple reason

that in the first instance when he replied to the charge sheet he did not

mention anywhere that the certificate that had been mentioned in the charge

sheet was not submitted by him. In fact, in the reply there is not even a

whisper of his having matriculated from Bihar and not from Haryana. The

Tribunal is absolutely right in coming to the conclusion, in these

circumstances, that the story now put up by the petitioner is an after-thought

and a device to somehow wriggle out of the difficulty in which he finds

himself.

14. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The

writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 12, 2012 mk