WP/6663/2011 of V.Ramakrishna S/o. Late Kannaiah, Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home on 31 December 2024

O R D E R :

WRIT PETITION No.6663 of 2011

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 03.04.2010 passed by the 4[th] respondent whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. The subsequent orders dated 12.08.2010 and 19.01.2011 confirming the orders of dismissal are also challenged in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable on 25.04.1985. The petitioner was promoted as a Head Constable on 11.05.2007. On 19.11.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner. A charge memo dated 18.12.2009 was issued and that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of furnishing a fake and fabricated transfer certificate purportedly issued to the petitioner by the School Authority where the petitioner studied.

3. The second charge relates to the details submitted by the petitioner at the time of applying for the post of constable regarding the petitioner’s educational qualification. The petitioner submitted that he has passed 8[th] standard in the questionnaire.

The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 09.03.2010 holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner.

4. The presenting officer addressed a letter to the Head Master of Z.P.S.C.J.N.M Gowtampur for verification of the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner. The Head Master did not submit any reply, as such, one Mr.J.K.Kamble was deputed to verify the same from the school. The Head Master is said to have issued a letter dated 03.11.2009 which was marked as an exhibit by the presenting officer and that the Head Master had informed that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was not in accordance with the records of the school. Basing on the report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed appeal and also filed revision before the revisional authorities, but in vain. Z.P.S.C.J.N.M Gowtampur for verification of the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner. The Head Master did not submit any reply, as such, one Mr.J.K.Kamble was deputed to verify the same from the school. The Head Master is said to have issued a letter dated 03.11.2009 which was marked as an exhibit by the presenting officer and that the Head Master had informed that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was not in accordance with the records of the school. Basing on the report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed appeal and also filed revision before the revisional authorities, but in vain.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner passed away on 03.11.2023 and the legal heirs are brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the framing of a charge of furnishing of an allegedly fabricated/fake transfer certificate relating to the year 2009 is not only improper, but also a blatant act of irrationality. away on 03.11.2023 and the legal heirs are brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the framing of a charge of furnishing of an allegedly fabricated/fake transfer certificate relating to the year 2009 is not only improper, but also a blatant act of irrationality.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the oral information of the Principal who was serving in the school in the information of the Principal who was serving in the school in the year 2009 was secured in the form of a letter and marked as Ex.P7. It is submitted that the entire enquiry is revolving around Ex.P7 which according to the presenting officer is a crucial document. However, the said exhibit is the oral information rendered into writing without any supporting annexure. The learned counsel further submits that the Head Master who was serving at the school could not have issued extracts of the original registers as the school itself was changed from Z.P.S.C.J.N.M, Gowtampur, Khammam District was changed as Z.PSS High School, Gowtampur. The enquiry report also would reveal that the Head Master who was enquired with regarding the transfer certificate had verbally informed. However, there was no substantiating extract of the register to corroborate with the verbal statement of Head Master of the School.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the Head Master ought to have been examined as a witness. The entire enquiry was concluded only based on one document, which was the verbal transcript of the statement of the Head Master of the School whom the Officer of the C.I.S.F., met for verification. It is also submitted that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of cross examining the star source of the presenting officer. No reasons are assigned as to why the corroborating material was collected by J.K.Kamble when the Head Master is alleged to have verified the old records and informed as stated in Ex.P7.

8. The learned counsel further submits that proposing to conduct an enquiry on the genuineness of transfer certificate after 24 years of service is certainly due to some false alarm raised on the certificates of the petitioner by vested interests. It is highly unlikely that records pertaining to the year 1979 could not have been available in physical form. More so, when the school itself underwent a change. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that enquiry conducted on known irregularities after considerable delay is not maintainable and charge memo issued on the irregularities committed long back was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was a delay in five and half years delay in serving the charges and that enquiry which was not conducted within a reasonable time the enquiry is deemed to be dropped.

1 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1062

2 (1995) 2 SCC 570

1 2005 LawSuit (SC) 1062

2 (1995) 2 SCC 570

9. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the verification of certificate was randomly taken up and the petitioner was recruited basing on the transfer certificate, however, on verification it is found that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was fabricated and also fake. Sri.John Babu, was the Head Master was in-service during 17.06.1976 to 30.09.1979 and the signature of the Head Master on the certificate produced by the petitioner was not tallying with that of the signature of the then Head Master John Babu. the verification of certificate was randomly taken up and the petitioner was recruited basing on the transfer certificate, however, on verification it is found that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was fabricated and also fake. Sri.John Babu, was the Head Master was in-service during 17.06.1976 to 30.09.1979 and the signature of the Head Master on the certificate produced by the petitioner was not tallying with that of the signature of the then Head Master John Babu.

10. It is also submitted that submission of fake documents for securing employment is a serious misconduct and definitely deserves the severest punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted by the learned central government counsel that CISF has more than 1,60,000 serving men on its rolls and that the establishment works under the Home Affairs. securing employment is a serious misconduct and definitely deserves the severest punishment of dismissal from service. It is submitted by the learned central government counsel that CISF has more than 1,60,000 serving men on its rolls and that the establishment works under the Home Affairs.

11. Any employee of CISF ought to submit correct and genuine information and documents for securing employment. It is also submitted that there is no limitation for the respondents to conduct any enquiry regarding any certificate submitted by any employee and when the certificates so submitted by the employee is found fake and fabricated, the respondent/authority definitely has the right to take necessary action in accordance with law. information and documents for securing employment. It is also submitted that there is no limitation for the respondents to conduct any enquiry regarding any certificate submitted by any employee and when the certificates so submitted by the employee is found fake and fabricated, the respondent/authority definitely has the right to take necessary action in accordance with law.

12. It is also submitted by the learned central government standing counsel that fair enquiry was conducted and ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to participate in enquiry and also submit his version of defence. counsel that fair enquiry was conducted and ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner to participate in enquiry and also submit his version of defence.

13. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not follow the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority has taken a concerted decision basing on the evidence before it and also after conducting a detailed enquiry. Statements of witnesses were recorded exhibits were marked and the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment which the petitioner deserved. As the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner cannot challenge the same on the ground that enquiry was initiated after 24 years of service. The learned central government counsel relies on Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Rajendra D.Harmalkar[3], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order of dismissal was justified on the facts of that case. The employee had furnished a fabricated/fake/forged SSLC certificate at the time of appointment. It also does not matter whether such certificate is material or not or had any bearing on the employment was immaterial. The enquiry officer did not follow the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority has taken a concerted decision basing on the evidence before it and also after conducting a detailed enquiry. Statements of witnesses were recorded exhibits were marked and the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment which the petitioner deserved. As the misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner cannot challenge the same on the ground that enquiry was initiated after 24 years of service. The learned central government counsel relies on Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Rajendra D.Harmalkar[3], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order of dismissal was justified on the facts of that case. The employee had furnished a fabricated/fake/forged SSLC certificate at the time of appointment. It also does not matter whether such certificate is material or not or had any bearing on the employment was immaterial. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was a matter of trust and an employee guilty of furnishing fake/false/forged/fabricated certificate cannot be trusted. Union of India(UOI) and Others Vs.

Shishu Pal[4], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealt with a similar issue where the employee submitted a false declaration at the time of employment and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal which was upheld by the appellate and revisional authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer had exercised their discretion in a reasonable manner. As such, the decision of the disciplinary authority was held as appropriate.

14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

Consideration of the Court :

15. Whether the respondents are justified in verifying the credentials of certificates after 24 years of service of the petitioner and whether this Court can interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed vide the impugned proceedings. of certificates after 24 years of service of the petitioner and whether this Court can interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed vide the impugned proceedings.

16. The petitioner joined the service on 25.04.1985 as a Constable and was promoted as a Head Constable after serving for 22 and was promoted as a Head Constable after serving for 22

years. The petitioner was placed under suspension after serving for 24 years.The respondents came to know about the fabricated and fake certificates which were furnished by the petitioner and as such the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry.

17. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to the charges. The petitioner had ample opportunity of approaching the School Authorities and seek either a fresh certificate or get the certificate endorsed by the Head Master and submit the same along with his explanation. This basic effort is glaringly staining at the petitioner’s conduct. The petitioner had ample opportunity of approaching the School Authorities and seek either a fresh certificate or get the certificate endorsed by the Head Master and submit the same along with his explanation. This basic effort is glaringly staining at the petitioner’s conduct.

18. The right of verification of certificates of the employees cannot be challenged by the petitioner. It is understandable that the C.I.S.F with more than 1,60,000 men in uniform under its rolls, it is imperative for the C.I.S.F., to do the back ground verification of its employees. The petitioner on account of his seniority if not dismissed from service would be entitled for further promotions such as Sub-Inspector and Inspector etc., Thus, the petitioner cannot challenge the right of the respondents in conducting verification. challenged by the petitioner. It is understandable that the C.I.S.F with more than 1,60,000 men in uniform under its rolls, it is imperative for the C.I.S.F., to do the back ground verification of its employees. The petitioner on account of his seniority if not dismissed from service would be entitled for further promotions such as Sub-Inspector and Inspector etc., Thus, the petitioner cannot challenge the right of the respondents in conducting verification.

19. It is trite to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan and others[5], wherein it was held that two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.

50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking.

51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, 5 [2023] 11 S.C.R 731

although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.

64. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.

20. It is no doubt well established law that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out by the established law and the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

21. On the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner could not place his case for judicial review by this Court on the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. place his case for judicial review by this Court on the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

22. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Dated 31.12.2024 KGM

KGM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

WRIT PETITION No.6663 of 2011

Dated 31.12.2024