Randhir Singh Panwar vs Cantonment Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 274 UK

                                                             Reserved judgment

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition No. 4349 of 2018 S/S)
                 (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)


Randhir Singh Panwar
S/o Sri Surat Singh,
R/o 232 Vikas Lok,
Lane No.5, Sahastradhara Road,
Upper Adhoiwala, Dehradun
District-Dehradun                                             .....Petitioner

                                     Versus

Cantonment Board, Dehradun & others                          ...Respondents

Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 07.10.2016 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.3.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and to quash the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2016 has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) in Shaheed Mekh Bahadur Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun vide order dated 20.10.1997. The requisite qualification for appointment on the aforesaid post was post graduate degree in Sociology and candidate must be having B.Ed. Degree. In the year 2001, the degree was given to the petitioner by the said University. Subsequently, a

complaint has been made against the petitioner alleging therein that the testimonial of the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner has secured the post of Lecturer, are forged and fabricated. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Committee of Management of the School initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, a charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner. In the said charge sheet, the charge with regard to the forged documents with regard to the qualification of M.A. Sociology has been framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2007, an F.I.R./Case Crime No. 106 of 2007, under Sections 420 & 468 of I.P.C. at Police Station-Cantt, Dehradun has been registered against the petitioner by one Shyam Sunder alleging therein that the petitioner has secured the job on the basis of forged documents. In pursuant to the said F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. While submitting the final report, the Investigating Officer specifically recorded the findings that the documents pertaining to the educational qualification in the office of the Cantt. Board, Dehradun of the petitioner are found correct. Thereafter, again an and F.I.R. was registered on 25.03.2015 by the C.B.I. at SPE, CBI, Dehradun alleging therein the petitioner secured his job by submitting forged Master Degree. Due the F.I.R. registered against him, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 10.04.2015. Thereafter, on 15.04.2015, a show cause notice calling his original documents and several dates have been fixed for the same by the authority concerned but neither the petitioner appeared before the authority concerned nor he has given any reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, on 09.02.2016, a communication has been issued by the authority concerned that till 18.02.2016 the educational testimonial be submitted in office but the petitioner did not submit the

original documents before the authority concerned. Thereafter, the authority concerned appointed an enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner requested the authority concerned that on the identical issues the C.B.I was also investigating the matter, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings be deferred till the conclusion of the investigation by the C.B.I. but the same has not been considered by the authority concerned. The charges were proved against the petitioner and consequently vide order dated 07.10.2016, petitioner has been dismissed from his service.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of dismissal has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner made request to the competent authority with regard that some documents be provided to him but the authority concerned has not provided the same. He would further submit that in the departmental proceedings the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry of the petitioner is of the same rank i.e. Group-C to which the petitioner belonged, which is violative to the Rules, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that while in the year 2007, the matter was investigated and the final report was submitted after examining the correctness of the record available in the office of Cantonment Board, Dehradun, thereafter, in the year on the similar set of allegations the F.I.R. has been lodged by C.B.I. is violative of the Rules. He would further submit that the enquiry proceedings were going on in regard to forged documents of the petitioner in different department

and without taking decision in these enquiry proceedings, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authority. .

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the C.B.I. has registered the F.I.R. against the petitioner on its own, on the charge that the educational documents of the petitioner were forged and disciplinary action against the petitioner was taken in an independent departmental enquiry and as such, C.B.I. enquiry has nothing to do with the departmental enquiry.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 stating therein that before passing the order of dismissal, sufficient opportunities were afforded to the petitioner and same has been passed in accordance with law. It is further stated that the petitioner never submitted original degree of M.A. (Sociology) to the Cantonment Board, Dehradun for its verification, despite asking him to produce the same on various occasions. It is further stated that it is true that the F.I.R. was lodged by public person alleging that the petitioner had secured the appointment in question on the basis of forged documents and when the department made an enquiry for verification of his educational certificate from H.N.B. Garhwal University, the same were not found authenticated by the University. It is further stated that petitioner was suspended vide order dated 10.04.2015 in contemplation of departmental enquiry and the Cantonment Board has acted in the matter strictly in accordance with Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. It is further stated that in the Cantonment Board Dehradun, the employees cadres are under Group 'C' and Group 'D' only and there is no post under Group 'B'. In such scenario, as per Rules, a senior most personnel/Officer Higher in the rank, pay scale and Grade than the delinquent officer be appointed as Enquiry

Officer and in regard to the petitioner, Doctor Mrs. Anamika Sharma, Medical Officer was senior to the petitioner, therefore, she was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter. It is further stated that the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on several times, on one pretext or another. It is further stated that the Cantonment Board has obtained the verification report from HNB Garhwal University regarding his certificate of MA (Sociology) and the University informed in writing to the Cantonment Office that no such certificate in question was ever issued to the petitioner which implied that the copy of the certificate submitted to Cantonment Board Dehradun is fake and fabricated. It is further stated that on the request of the petitioner for extending the time to submit reply to the enquiry report several opportunities were granted to him but the petitioner never submitted any reply to the enquiry report. It is further stated that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had submitted photo copy of his M.A. (Sociology) and marks sheet of B.Ed degree but he never submitted the original of the same, therefore, his claim that he had submitted original copy of the said documents in the office of the Cantonment Board, Dehradun was completely false. It is further stated that the appellate authority has already rejected the departmental appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2017. It is further stated that the impugned orders have been passed by the authority concerned in accordance with law, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the enquiry officer without following due procedure of Rules has submitting the enquiry report. It is further stated that the in the year 2007, an F.I.R. was lodged on the

identical allegations and the Investigating Officer while submitted the final report of the case has categorically mentioned that he has perused and seen the documents in the office of Cantonment Board and after satisfying himself the final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred the appeal before the 1st appellate authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Dehradun but the authority concerned has not taken any decision and thereafter, he also preferred the second appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi which is still pending consideration.

8. It was the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry in the matter was on the rank on which the petitioner is working. It was also the contention of the petitioner that in the year 2007, the matter was investigated and the final report was submitted after examining the correctness of the credential of the petitioner, further enquiry on the identical allegations is unsustainable in the eyes of law. From the counter affidavit, it is ample clear that the as per Rules, a senior most Officer in the rank, pay scale and Grade than the delinquent officer shall be appointed as Enquiry Officer and Doctor Mrs. Anamika Sharma, Medical Officer was senior to the petitioner, therefore, she was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the matter, thus, there is no violation of the Rules. Furthermore, the submissions of final report by the regular police, after perusal of the documents submitted in the Cantonment Board, Dehradun would not suffice the purpose as it seems that the Investigating Officer did not make efforts to find out the genuineness of the said credentials of the petitioner. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived.

9. Perusal of the record would reveal that despite repeated demand of original certificate of the Degree of M.A. (Sociology) on which basis, the petitioner secured his service in the School, he did not furnish the original documents before the inquiry officer. The contention of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, therefore, there is violation of the principal of natural justice, has no substance as the petitioner was himself averred in the writ petition that several dates were fixed by the enquiry officer but he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, therefore, on his own fault of non appearing before the enquiry officer, the petitioner cannot blame that the enquiry has been conducted ex-parte. The petitioner nowhere has pleaded that he is having the original copies of Degree of M.A. (Sociology) and B.Ed. Degree from the Hemwanti Nandan Bahguna, Garhwal University.

10. Dismissal of the petitioner from the service is an administrative decision and the Court should not ordinarily interfere in the administrative decision. Furthermore, as the petitioner has not pleaded that he is having the original copies of the aforesaid documents, there is no fault attached with the employer in not giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would warrant action against him. In the case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proved beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct.

11. As regards the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, it is well settled principle in law that while exercising its powers of judicial review of any administrative action, Courts could not interfere with the administrative decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

12. It is well settled principle in law that while exercising its powers of judicial review of any administrative action, courts could not interfere with the administrative decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. Reference may be made to Municipal Council, Neemuch v. Mahadeo Real Estate and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 738.

13. In the case of Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"17. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority.

14. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no

evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions.

15. The scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an appellate authority, its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority. In the present case there is no violation of principle of natural justice at the end of the enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, there is no infirmity, deficiency or fault in the decision of the authority concerned. No interference is therefore called for.

16. For the reasons and findings recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Same is hereby dismissed.

17. No order as to costs.

(Lok Pal Singh, J) Mamta

Dated : 25.01.2021