PRABHU LAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of termination of the appellant passed by the Divisional Engineer on 28-02-1985, on the basis that he produced a forged matriculation Certificate while applying for the job is the subject matter of challenge on the ground that the purported exercise of power under rule 19 (ii) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS Rules) is, on the face of it, vitiated as no reasons have been recorded in writing to indicate as to why it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. On a perusal of the said order of the Divisional Engineer, it is no doubt true that the appropriate Authority has not indicated reasons in writing for dispensing with the inquiry on the ground that it is not possible to hold an inquiry. But, in the case in hand, we do not think it appropriate to interfere in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the sole basis of the appellant's case is that he had not submitted the so-called certificate of passing the High School Examination which is now being sought to be relied upon by the Authority and he is not aware of the fact as to who had submitted the aforesaid certificate.

(2.) It transpires that after the order of termination dated 28th February, 1985, the appellant had not taken any steps to assail the legality of the same until in the pending criminal proceeding he was acquitted. Being emboldened by an order of acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the appellant initiated a conciliation proceeding before an Industrial forum and finally the Industrial forum having held that the dispute is not entertainable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, approached the tribunal. The Tribunal, without entering into the merits of the matter, disposed of the O. A. on the ground that there has been gross delay in approaching the Tribunal and that the appellant had not availed of the alternative remedy available under the provisions of the CCA rules. The appellant then approached the High Court in a writ petition, but the High Court on consideration of facts being of the opinion that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of termination in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) It is Indeed difficult for us to imagine that when in the institution where the appellant got into the service, a certificate of passing the High School Examination was produced on behalf of one Shri Prabhu Lal Sharma son of Shri Ram Prasad Sharma and the appellant concedes that it was his name and his father's name but somebody else other than the appellant had submitted the same. It transpires from the statement of the Head Master of the school from which centre the appellant seems to have appeared at the School examination that no such person called Prabhu Lal Sharma son of Ram Prasad bearing Roll No. 455718 appeared as a candidate from the School centre in the High School Examination of 1976-77.