JASWINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service, duly preceded by a regular departmental inquiry, on the ground that she i.e.Jaswinder Kaur daughter of Sh.Maluk Singh and wife of Sh.Sumitter Singh obtained employment as Telephone Operator under DET (now GMT) Jalandhar, fraudulently by submitting a fake certificate dated 15.11.1972 of Higher Secondary Part I, Examination held in March 1972 and also a fake certificate dated 23.10.1973 of Higher Secondary Part II Examination held in March 1973 and Roll No.100308 in proof of her academic qualification. Thus, she by grave misconduct on her part exhibited lack of integrity and contravened the provisions of Rule 3.1 (i) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. This is what led the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

(2.) AS is discernible from the records, the petitioner sought to assail the departmental action before the Tribunal primarily on two counts:

(3.) EVEN on merits, the Tribunal, on a thorough consideration and analysis of the records found that the matter before the Tribunal was of getting employment on the basis of forged document which apparently belonged to the sister of the applicant. It was also observed that a reading of the inquiry report shows that there was sufficient material before the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion that the articles of charges levelled against the applicant stood fully proved. A reference was also made to the inquiries conducted by Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Superintendent of Police to say that the same were solicited only for the purposes of arriving at an opinion at the stage of issuing a charge sheet. Therefore, these would not nullify the facts which were duly proved and substantiated in the disciplinary proceedings. We may also note that the respondent -Department had entered into correspondence with the Punjab School Education Board and eventually found that the petitioner had used the certificates which did not belong to her for getting employment. Assertion of the petitioner that respondents should have examined the Secretary of the Board, who had signed the letter, showing that the applicant had not appeared in the particular examination, also did not find favour with the Tribunal, as it was observed that Annexure A -9 was an application for the job and there again it was doubtful as to what exactly was the date of birth of the petitioner as some tampering appeared to have been done. The Tribunal also opined viz -a -viz its jurisdiction to interfere in matter of such a nature as it was only in a case of no evidence the Tribunal could interfere. Since there was some evidence on the basis whereof a conclusion could safely be arrived at, as arrived by the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal chose not to go into the sufficiency of the evidence. Having perused the record and the inquiry report in particular, it was recorded in no uncertain terms that the principles of natural justice were fully adhered to. The grievance which had been made before the Tribunal that certain documents, despite having asked for, were never supplied to the petitioner, was also rejected as the petitioner failed to substantiate as to how the said documents were relevant and also as to what prejudice was suffered by the petitioner on account of denial of the copies thereof.