Commissioner, Navodaya ... vs Damodar Singh Gunawat S/O Late ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1318 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001211]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4233/2022

1.       Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institu-
         tional Area, Sector 62, Noida, District Gauttambudh Na-
         gar (Uttar Pradesh) - 201307.
2.       Joint   Commissioner         (Personnel)         Navodaya    Vidyalaya
         Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, District
         Gauttambudh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) - 201307.
3.       Dy. Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur Re-
         gion, Regional Office 18, Sangram Colony, Mahaveer
         Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001.
4.       Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jat Nagla, Tehsil
         Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
Damodar Singh Gunawat S/o Late Shri Amol Singh Meena, Aged
About 48 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gurdah (Chowki Ka
Pura), Tehsil Mandrayal, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

01/02/2023

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents-petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, learned

counsel for the petitioner-respondent.

2. The petitioner-respondent was employed as a cook with the

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV). His services were terminated

[2023/RJJP/001211] (2 of 4) [CW-4233/2022]

vide order dated 06.05.2015 following an enquiry into the charges

of having produced forged experience certificates.

3. The petitioner-respondent for the purposes of securing the

job of the cook had produced certain certificates of the Hotel Hawa

Mahal, Hotel Holiday Inn and a canteen of Hindustan Zink Ltd. to

show that he had the relevant experience of cooking of five years.

Subsequently, the respondents-petitioners held an enquiry against

the petitioner-respondent for producing forged certificate for the

purposes of obtaining the job. In the said disciplinary enquiry, cer-

tain letters were obtained from the above hotels and canteen stat-

ing that the respondents had not worked with them.

4. On the basis of the said documentary evidence, the enquiry

report went against the petitioner-respondent and his services

were terminated.

5. The petitioner-respondent challenged the termination order

by means of an Original Application before the Central Administra-

tive Tribunal, Jaipur. The said Original Application has been al-

lowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2021

holding that the petitioner-respondent was not afforded any op-

portunity to rebut the evidence produced to prove the certificates

to be fake rather no evidence was adduced against the documen-

tary evidence in the form of letters to prove the certificates to be

fake.

6. The Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision in the case

of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram Pal

Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491, wherein it has

been held that if an order of punishment is passed solely on the

basis of documentary evidence and the same is not proved by

[2023/RJJP/001211] (3 of 4) [CW-4233/2022]

examining witnesses executing the said document, the order of

punishment cannot be sustained even if the documents are

admitted by the charged Officer.

7. In the case at hand, the punishment order has been passed

solely relying upon the letters alleging that the experience certifi-

cates of the petitioner-respondent are fake but without examining

any witness to prove the said letters. No witness was examined to

prove that said letters were written by the person concerned.

8. In view of the above, as the said letters were not proved, no

order of punishment could have been passed treating the certifi-

cates of experience furnished by the petitioner-respondent to be

fake.

9. The other argument of learned counsel for the respondents-

petitioners is that against the order of termination, the petitioner-

respondent had an opportunity of a departmental appeal and he

could not have straightaway approached the Tribunal by means of

an Original Application.

10. The petitioner-respondent is a Group-D employee and his

appointing/disciplinary authority is the Principal, JNV, who is the

competent authority to pass an order of punishment. Against the

order of the punishment as per the Notification dated 06.03.2007,

the petitioner-respondent had a remedy of an appeal before the

Appellate Tribunal that has been specified as Deputy Commis-

sioner.

11. In the case at hand, the punishment order against the peti-

tioner-respondent has been passed not by the Principal, JNV but

the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the petitioner-respondent

had no remedy left to file any appeal. In cases where the order of

[2023/RJJP/001211] (4 of 4) [CW-4233/2022]

punishment itself is passed by a higher authority than the appoint-

ing/disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, the remedy

of appeal loses significance and in such a situation, the petitioner-

respondent was left with no remedy but to approach the Tribunal

or the Court.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not

find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dis-

missed with no order as to costs.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                             (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

                                   N.GANDHI/RAJAT/26









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)