RAMESH CHANDRA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the Petitioner -Ramesh Chandra Nath has sought to challenge the Order Dated 6.9.1999 (Annexure -6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.253 of 1993 by which the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Petitioner's original application seeking to challenge the order of termination passed pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the present case are mat the Petitioner had been selected and appointed as a Postal Assistant in Bhubaneswar Division in the year 1981. He claims to have made an application in response to an advertisement issued by the Opp. Parties and continued as such till 28.8.1985 when the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar Division issued a memorandum of charge alleging therein that the Petitioner secured his appointment relying upon a false Scheduled Tribe certificate and therefore, has exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of postal employees and thereby contravened Rule -3 of the CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In response to the aforesaid memorandum of charge, the Petitioner submitted his explanation, inter alia, contending therein that the application produced by the Department in course, of inquiry did not belong to him and that the signature appended to the application was not his signature nor he ever applied for the post of Postal Assistant on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. It is further alleged that the original application filed by the Petitioner had not been produced before the Inquiring Officer. The aforesaid contentions raised by the Petitioner was rejected by the Inquiring Officer and ultimately, the order of termination of service was passed against which the Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application.

(3.) THE plea of the Opp. Parties in the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner had applied for the Post against S.T. vacancies notified, for the first half of the year 1981 and on the basis of the attested copy of S.T. certificate and information furnished in the application form by the Petitioner, he had been selected as a Postal Assistant against a reserved vacancy for S.T. candidate. Although the Petitioner attempts to deny having applied as a S.T. candidate, the application form submitted by him was accompanied with a S.T. certificate. Had the Petitioner been considered as a General candidate, he could not have been selected as the percentage of marks secured by him in HSC examination with bonus marks for higher qualification was much less than the percentage of marks secured by the last candidate selected against open category vacancies. Therefore, from this fact alone, it is evident that the Petitioner would not have been entitled for selection as a open category candidate and had, in fact, been selected as a S.T. candidate.