MANAGING DIRECTOR TRIFED Vs. ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 1 st August, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 2490/94, thus setting aside the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner, `Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhury from his services as Deputy General Manager (functioning as Zonal Manager, Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd., Guwahati) under the impugned order dated 25th January, 1994 issued by the Managing Director, the tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd., Savitri Sadan-II, 15, Preet Vihar Community Centre, Vikas Marg, Delhi-l 10092 (for short, TRIFED), as in Annexure-B to the writ petition, is the subject matter under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

(2.) For better appreciation of the matter under reference, the facts of the case in a short campus are as hereunder:-

(3.) The writ petitioner, the sole respondent herein, filed a writ petition underCivil Rule No. 2490 of 1994 before this Court for quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 25th January, 1994, as in Annexure-B to the writ petition, by contending, inter alia, that he applied for the post of Deputy General Manager in the TRIFED in pursuance of a related advertisement; he was duly selected after he faced the interview and thereafter he was appointed as Deputy General Manager under a related order/letter dated 22nd September, 1992, issued by the General Manager (Personnel & Administration), TRIFED and, accordingly, he joined duties in TRIFED, Zonal Office at Guwahati on 7th October, 1992. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the writ petitioner will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his joining TRIFED, which may be further extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. The probation period of the petitioner was extended by a further period of six months with effect from 22nd September, 1993, by virtue of an Office Order dated 3rd December, 1993, as in Annexure-A1 to the writ petition. Before expiry of the said extended period of probation, the writ petitioner, the sole respondent herein, was dismissed from service under the impugned order dated 25th January, 1994, as in Annexure-B to the writ petition. The main ground for dismissal of the writ petitioner from service is that he has defrauded TRIFED by producing a forged degree certificates and a forged mark sheet and there is all probability that his caste certificate might also be a forged document since the name in his caste certificate and the name in his various school certificates is not tallied with. But, according to the writ petitioner, at the time of his appointment he submitted certificates showing that he passed AMIE Examinations from the Institution of Engineers (India) and also passed the MBA from the University of Illinois at Chicago and he too belonged to Scheduled Caste community and all these certificates and information supplied by him are correct and genuine. On the other hand, the respondents in the writ petition contended, inter alia, that TRIFED is not a 'State' or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition of the sole respondent herein is not maintainable; on enquiry made by the Secretary of the TRIFED, the Academic Adviser, Graduate Professional Programme of the University of Illinois, vide letter dated 20th October, 1993, stated that the writ petitioner did not receive MBA degree from the said university at Chicago or from Urbana and the petitioner never attended either of the institutions and, rather, the Institution of Engineers (India), vide its letter dated 26th August, 1993 as in Annexure-C to the affidavit- in-opposition, informed the Assistant General Manager, TRIFED, Calcutta that the writ petitioner appeared in the Section A examination in November, 1966 with Roll No. 5382, but he could not secure final pass in the said examination and his mark sheet, therefore, appears to have been forged, and since he did not pass in Section A examination, the question of his appearing in Section B examination does not arise, and that Roll No. 4460 for Section B November, 1967 examination, as quoted by the writ petitioner, does not exist in the records at all and it appears that he has concocted the marksheet. It is also the case of the appellant that the writ petitioner was approinted on probation and he may be terminated from his services and accordingly he was dismissed from his services under the impugned dismissal order, which was not passed by way of punishment and, as such, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be attracted.