MEENA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second round of litigation by the Applicant. Earlier in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, she was removed from service vide order dated 19.09.2007. Her appeal and the Review Application were also rejected vide orders dated 30.04.2009 and 03.11.2009 respectively. She challenged those orders before this Tribunal in OA No. 3693/2000 and it was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2010 on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in an arbitrary manner and in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Another : 1999 (7) SCC 739. Accordingly, this Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority to take up proceedings on disagreement in accordance with law, if so advised. The Applicant was also ordered to be reinstated in service forthwith and to decide the interregnum period after final decision is taken in the matter. Accordingly, the Applicant was reinstated in service and further proceedings were initiated against her later.

(2.) THE brief background of the case is that the Respondents have proceeded against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of Articles of Charges framed against her was as under: - -

(3.) MEANWHILE , FIR No. 169/2004 was filed by the Respondents on the same set of charges against her before the PS Civil Lines under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC State v. Meena. In the said FIR, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices alleged that she while filling up the Attestation Form declared her qualification as having 12th pass in 1998 from CCSICB, Bulandshar, UP and she submitted the mark sheet and certificate of 1998 in respect of Roll No. 0799241. However, those documents were found to be forged. They were sent to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, UP vide letter dated 01.06.1999. However, no reply was received by them. But the Kashetriya Sachiv Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, vide their letter dated 10.11.2000, informed that the certificate is totally forged. By another letter dated 12.01.2001 they have again informed that both the certificate as well as the mark sheet is forged. The Learned ACMM -02/North/Delhi, vide his judgment dated 30.06.2011, relying upon the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, held that the certificate of 12th class was already proved to be genuine. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Others : JT 2008(11) SC 32 wherein it has been held that material produced by the defence at the time of framing of charge can be looked into in very rare case, i.e., where defence produced some material which shows that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. The Learned ACMM has also held that no case has been made out against the Applicant (accused) for framing the charge. According to him, if it is assumed that both the documents are forged still no case is made out because no wrongful gain has been accrued to the accused and no wrongful loss has been caused to the complainant. Accordingly, the Applicant was discharged.