Delhi High Court
Lachi Ram Sharma vs Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan & ... on 9 August, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 369/2008 and CM Nos. 9558/2015 & 19200/2015
Judgment Dated: 09th August, 2016
LACHI RAM SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria and
Mr.Prakash Chandra Sharma,
Advocate
versus
KENDRIYA VIDAYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate with Mr.
Dr. Puran Chand and Ms. Salini
A.P., Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal) order dated
13.09.2006 in OA No. 1200/2005.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Udhampur (J&K) on 10.12.1986. He was confirmed in
the year 1988 and later transferred to Delhi and posted at Kendriya
Vidayalaya, NTPC, Badarpur. A charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner on 13.10.1998 alleging that the petitioner had submitted a
fake transfer certificate bearing No.36205 showing a false date of
birth and education qualification, in the absence whereof, the
petitioner would not be entitled to his post. An Inquiry Officer was
appointed. During the pendency of the inquiry various objections
were raised by the petitioner including the objection of bias was
also raised. In the absence of the defence witness or documents, the
charge was proved against the petitioner. A penalty order of
termination of the services of the petitioner was passed on
29.05.1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected
and the same led to filing of OA No.1237/2000 which was disposed
of on 17.05.2002, remanding the matter to the appellate authority to
reconsider the same in view of a transfer certificate bearing
No.2770, which was alleged to be the true certificate of the
petitioner. Thereafter the appellate authority rejected the appeal
holding the certificate bearing No.2770 as an afterthought as being
tendered at a late stage.
3. An OA No. 516/2003 was filed before the Tribunal, which
was disposed of on 04.03.2004 with a direction to the respondent to
verify the qualification of the petitioner in view of a Clarification
Letter dated 09.01.1999 provided by the School of the petitioner. In
compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the Education Officer
submitted its report on 23.09.2004 whereby it raised serious doubts
over the veracity of the transfer certificate bearing No.2770 and
ultimately held it to be forged. Accordingly, the petitioner was
removed from the service and the appellate authority upheld the
same. The orders were again challenged by filing of OA
No.1200/2005 which was dismissed and has led to the filing of the
present writ petition. When the matter was taken up by this court on
22.08.2014, the following directions were issued:-
"(a) The Registrar General of this court shall
nominate a judicial officer presently working as Joint
Registrar, in this case, for the purposes of holding an
enquiry;
(b) The Joint Registrar so nominated shall either
personally visit or call for the records and submit a
report as to the nature of the documents and whether
the petitioner‟s name indeed appeared in S.No.2770 of
the appropriate register containing a record of
Transfer Certificate and School Leaving Certificate
issue by the said institution. In this regard, the Enquiry
Officer shall also record the statements of the
concerned officers or employees of the said institution
who maintained the records and also ensure that the
photocopies or copies of the said disputed
document/documents, derived from any other format -
scanning, photograph etc. are placed on the record
along with the Enquiry Report. The Enquiry Officer
shall indicate his observations as to the genuineness of
the original documents and any other remarks that he
may think, are appropriate in this regard.
8. The Enquiry Officer shall record his
findings/observations with regard to the genuineness of
the clarification letter dated 09.01.1999. The
petitioner had relied upon it and stated it to have been
issued by the said institution. The Enquiry Officer
shall complete the entire proceedings and furnish his
report within 3 months from today. The parties shall
be entitled to take part in the enquiry process."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Meanwhile on
24.11.2014, an application was filed by the respondent No.1
seeking liberty to examine the school authorities at Bhagola,
Faridabad, Haryana and to produce additional material. By an order
dated 21.07.2015, the application was allowed and the respondent
was permitted to examine the School Authority.
5. The enquiry report is on record and the respondent has
examined the witness as sought by it. The concluding part of the
report reads as under:-
"Considering the submissions made by the officials of
Kisan Inter-College, Parsola Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P, counsel for parties and after perusal of the
original documents, the following conclusions are
drawn:-
(i) The register i.e. Student Registration,
Admission and Transfer, pertaining to the
period 19.08.1974 to 24.07.1975 produced
before me, is original and appears to be
genuine.
(ii) The entry at Sl. No.2770 in the original
register i.e. „Student Registration,
Admission and Transfer‟ indeed shows the
particulars of student, namely, Lachi Ram,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o Bhagola, D.O.B:
21.07.1963, Date of school joining:
12.07.1975 and Date of school leaving:
08.07.1978, which also appear to be
genuine.
(iii) Clarification letter dated ‟09.01.1999‟
also appears to be genuine as the
signatures of the then Principal of Kisan-
Inter College, Parsola Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P. and letter-pad are identified
by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Clerk and
RW-1 (Principal).
With the above observations, In conclude the enquiry
and submit the report alongwith documents collected
in course of enquiry."
6. At this juncture, both counsel for the parties have prayed that
the writ petition may be disposed of on following agreed terms:-
i) Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
willing to make a statement that in case he is reinstated he
will forgo 75% of the back wages provided he is granted
notional benefits including promotion and for which
petitioner will make a formal representation within one
week from today.
ii) The representation of the petitioner should be decided
within six weeks.
iii) In case the representation is not considered favourably
the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer will form part
of the record.
7. The inquiry officer will consider already existing material
and also the evidence which have been recorded pursuant to the
direction of this court and thereafter, give a report within six weeks.
8. It is hope that all the proceedings shall be concluded as
expeditiously as possible within a period of six months. The request
of the petitioner will be considered, unaffected by the orders which
have already been passed in this matter including the dismissal
orders.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
10. Copy of the order be given dasti.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
AUGUST 09, 2016
b
