UNION OF INDIA Vs. RABINARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed against two different orders both of which were passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 9.8.1999 in O.A. Nos.36 of 1993 and 244 of 1994. Since both the writ petition are related to the services of Opposite Party No.1, Rabinarayan Das, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, which are common in both the writ petitions, are that in the year 1971 applications were invited from the candidates for selection to the post of Engineering Supervisor, Telgegraphs by the Orissa P&T Circle on the basis of marks secured in the B.Sc. Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that Opposite Party No.1 submitted his application on 19.11.1971 declaring and stating that he had secured 620 marks out of 900 marks in the B.Sc. Supplementary Examination held in the month of September 1967. On the basis of the said 620 marks, i.e., 68.9%, the name of Opposite party No.1 was placed at Sl. No.68 of the select list amongst the candidates belonging to other categories (O.C.). The candidates from Sl. Nos. 1 to 51 of the merit list were approved for selection on 23.2.1972 by the Selection Committee. At that time the candidates from Sl. Nos.52 to 77 were kept in the waiting list as per the Recruitment Register. Thereafter they were approved on 12.4.1972 which included the name of opposite party No.1. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 and other candidates were sent for training and after completion of the training, Opposite Party No.1 was appointed as Junior Telecom Engineer on 29.5.1973 as by then the post of Engineering Supervisor Telegraphs was redesignated as Junior Telecom Engineer. Later on in an enquiry it was revealed from the tabulation register of the Utkal University for the B.Sc. Examination, 1967 that opposite party No.1 had secured only 363 marks out of 900 in the Supplementary Examination.,He had passed the B.Sc. Examination from Khetrabasi College, Nirakarpur. The mark sheet of Khetrabasi College clearly showed that opposite party No.1 had, in fact, secured 363 marks out of 900. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the time of selection an incorrect/false mark sheet was produced by opposite party No.1, who was selected basing on that mark sheet which showed the percentage of mark secured by him as 68.9%. The matter was referred to the C.B.I. which conducted investigation and on completion of investigation, a criminal case was instituted against opposite party No.1 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. Consequently a charge sheet was also filed against him. He was then placed under suspension with effect from 11.8.1986. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, before whom opp.Party No.1 faced trial, convicted him. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. Against the conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge who allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 24.11.1987, setting aside the order of conviction and acquitting him. Thereafter the Director, Telecom Headquarters, Bhubaneswar passed an order dated 6th April 1988 by which the order of dismissal of Opp.Party No.1 from service was set aside. However, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, it was directed that further enquiry (departmental enquiry) should be held under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (for short C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 and that opposite party No.1 should be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 11.12.1986 under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965. Against that order, opposite party No.1 had earlier filed O.A. No.153 of 1988 before the Tribunal against the order of deemed suspension from service in contemplation of enquiry, which was allowed vide order dated 27.8.1999 by quashing the impugned order dated 6.4.1988. Consequently opposite party No.1 was reinstated on 21.3.1991, but was not allowed consequential benefits on the ground that the same were not granted by the Tribunal while quashing the impugned order. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 filed another O.A. before the Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No. 36/1993, for a direction for payment of full back wages from 11.8.1986 to 22.3.1991, for revision of his Pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as has been done in case of other employees and for promotion to T.E.S. Group B from 1989 with its usual scale of pay along with fixation of inter se seniority as per his entitlement and other consequential benefits.

(3.) The further facts of the case are that the instant petitioners decided to initiate fresh departmental proceeding against opposite party No.1 vide order 01.2.1994 issued by the Telecom District Manager, Bhubaneswar. The relevant part of the memorandum dated 01.2.1994 is quoted hereunder: "The undersigned proposes to hold an inquiry against Sri Rabinarayan Das under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexures. III and IV)." Article 1 of the charge is also quoted as under - "Article-1: That the said Sri Rabinarayan Das got himself selected and appointed as Engineering Supervisor (now hereafter designated as Junior Telecom Officer) in the erstwhile Orissa P & T Circle, Bhubaneswar during the year 1973 by submitting false mark sheet in the Second Supplementary, Final B.Sc. in the year 1967. Sri Das could not have been either selected or appointed for the said post on the basis of actual marks secured by him. Sri Das by his above action committed grave misconduct and displayed lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is quite unbecoming of a Government servant."