UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHRISH PRASAD MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 26-4-2002 passed in OA No. 1235 of 1997 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.

(2.) SRI Shrish Prasad Misra (respondent No. 1) was selected for the post of reserved train pool (RTP) assistant and sorting assistant and his services were regularised on the year 1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in July, 1994, on the ground that he had submitted a forged marks-sheet of High School Examination, which showed that he had secured 72 marks in Mathematics when in fact he had secured only 34 marks. The enquiry officer held that the document which showed that Respondent No. 1 had secured only 34 marks, had not been proved and accordingly submitted a report that the charge against him had not been established. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and after serving a memo of disagreement and after giving an opportunity of making a representation, awarded punishment of removal from service. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order of removal from service but the same was dismissed. He filed a revision against the said order which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad which was allowed and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and also by the appellate and revisional authorities were quashed, and it was directed that Respondent No. 1 will be reinstated with all consequential benefits with the rider that he will be entitled to 50 per cent of the wages during the period he had not worked.

(3.) IN our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal that the department having failed to prove the document sent by the Board by examining the witness and tallying the document with the original on the basis of which it was prepared, the charge levelled against the employee had not been established is erroneous in law. The Board conducts examination of very large number of candidates every year. IN the year 2001, more than 33 lakhs students appeared in the High School and INtermediate examinations conducted by the Board of High School and INtermediate Education, U. P. Disputes regarding correctness or otherwise of the marks-sheet often arise. The long-standing practice is that if a query is made from the Board in accordance with the Rules and deposit of the prescribed fee, the Board sends the requisite information under its seal and in a registered cover. This document which is sent from the office of the Board is always accepted as correct. It is practically impossible for the Board to send one of its employees to prove the document every time a dispute arises.