SHAMIM AKHTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 63/2010. The petitioner had challenged his dismissal from service on account of his having been found to have submitted a fake Scheduled Tribe certificate in order to secure employment as a Khallasi in 1989. The Tribunal, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, held against the petitioner and, therefore, did not interfere with the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings as also with the order of penalty of dismissal from service.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 to a group `D' post (Khallasi) in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (ST). We may point out that the recruitment was against the shortfall quota of SC/ST candidates of various group `D' categories. It is, therefore, apparent that only a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe could have applied for the said posts. THE petitioner had applied for the same and he had allegedly submitted a Scheduled Tribe certificate which was subsequently found to be fake. However, at that point of time, the petitioner joined as a Khallasi with the respondent Northern Railways on 06.11.1989 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Train Lighting Fitter, Grade- III in 1993. He got a further promotion in 2002 to the post of Technical Grade-II. However, on 04.10.2005, he was charge sheeted on the charge of obtaining the appointment in the reserved category for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a fake Scheduled Tribe certificate. THEreafter, the enquiry proceedings commenced and an enquiry report was prepared on 23.01.2008 by the enquiry officer. THE disciplinary authority, after considering the report of the enquiry officer, passed the order dated 27.03.2008, whereby he imposed a penalty of dismissal from service.

(3.) THEREFORE, it cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence. We may also point out that after the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority, which also rejected his appeal by an order dated 02.02.2009. The matter was carried further in revision by the petitioner and the same was also rejected by an order dated 19.06.2009. It is thereafter that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of the said OA, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order.