UNION OF INDIA Vs. M PANDEESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 13.2.2009, made in O.A.No.403 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.

(2.) There is no dispute in the factual matrix. The first respondent herein M.Pandeeswaran was recruited for the post of "Sepoy" in the Department of the petitioners under the quota reserved for the members of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of Community Certificate No.2995007 (Sl.No.1415/88) dated 20.12.1988 purportedly issued from Madurai South Taluk Office, produced by the first respondent and the first respondent joined service on 27.12.1995 in the rank of "Sepoy". On a complaint from one Pandiammal from Madurai alleging that the first respondent joined service by producing false community certificate, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Madurai to ascertain the genuineness of the community Certificate and the District Collector, Madurai in his letter dated 27.3.1996 stated that the community certificate produced by the first respondent is forged one and consequently the first respondent was terminated from service on 19.4.1996 and he challenged the order by filing Original Application in O.A.No.615 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal by order, dated 28.11.1996, set aside the termination order on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the first respondent and gave liberty to the Department to proceed afresh. Accordingly the first respondent was reinstated in service on 26.12.1996 and notice dated 17.1.1997 was issued to him calling for his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he submitted a fake community certificate. The first respondent, in his reply dated 12.2.1997, stated that he belongs to "Kattu Naicken" Community and the community certificate produced by him was obtained by his father, who was an illiterate, with the assistance of some middlemen. In the meanwhile, on the complaint given by the Tahsildar, Madurai, a criminal case came to be registered for the alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the first respondent and after investigation, the final report was taken on file as C.C.No.151 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. After trial, the learned Magistrate held that though the community certificate concerned was a fake one, the prosecution has not proved that it was recovered at the instance of the accused and hence the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the charges by judgment dated 9.5.2001. The first respondent submitted letter on 12.3.2008 to the Department informing about his acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioners Department issued charge memo, dated 31.3.2008 to the first respondent, for having produced a fake community certificate and the first respondent filed his written statement of defence on 23.4.2008 denying the charge and sought for personal hearing and the same was given and the hearing took place on 22.5.2008 and the first respondent handed over a letter dated 22.5.2008 enclosing a xerox copy of the judgment dated 9.5.2001 delivered by the Criminal Court. The Disciplinary Authority held that the recruitment of the first respondent was solely made on the basis of the community certificate produced by him and on the verification made by the Districty Authorities, it is established that the community certificate was not issued from Madurai South Taluk Office; the number of the Community Certificate was not assigned to that Office; Sri.M.Muthusamy was not serving as Tahsildar on 20.12.1988; the signature found in the said community certificate did no tally with the signature of the Tahsildar Sri.M.Muthusamy; the community certificate produced by the first respondent was a bogus one and the Criminal Court also, in the judgment, observed that the community certificate was a forged one and by so holding, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the first respondent from service. Challenging the order, the first respondent preferred Original Application in O.A.No.403 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal framed only issue as to whether the Department is competent to terminate the services of the petitioner without getting a report either from the District Level Vigilance Committee or from the State Level Scrutiny Committee with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by him and held that no enquiry was conducted to verify the genuineness of the community certificate and no order has been passed cancelling the community certificate and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for and in that view of the matter, set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Department to reinstate the Delinquent in service with continuity of service and gave liberty to the Department to proceed in accordance with law. The Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal in the present writ petition and has sought for quashing the same.

(3.) Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for Central Excise appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Tribunal has erred in construing the bogus community certificate as having been issued by the Authority and its conclusion that a definite finding was not rendered about the genuineness of the community either by the Scrutiny Committee or by the District Collector and no final order has been passed cancelling the community certificate, is erroneous and liable to be set aside.