JAGMOHAN SINGH NEGI Vs. CAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4.8.2011, which has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner in the original application has prayed for a direction for quashing order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the respondent No. 5 Divisional Personnel Officer, Divisional Office, Ajmer by which he was (sic) his services were terminated holding that the same are illegal and unjustified. Petitioner undertook the apprenticeship training under the Apprentices Act, 1961 from the Carriage and Wagon Workshop , Ajmer from 1.6.1987 to 31.5.1990 and passed the prescribed test in the trade of Fitter held from 23.10.1990 to 31.1.1990 and 15.11.1990 to 26.11.1990. A provisional certificate issued in this behalf is placed on record as Annexure -A2 with the Original application. The copy of result of the apprenticeship test declared on 2.4.1991 is also placed as Annexure -A3. Petitioner undertook three years training and appeared in the apprenticeship course in the trade of 'Fitter' under the Apprentices Act, 1961 before appearing in the examination and apprenticeship certificate was issued to him on 22.8.1990. When the petitioner joined the apprenticeship course, a contract was entered into between him and the Carriage and Wagon Workshop which was registered under Registration No. KR -1/87/26/24 dated 8.9.1988 and a stamp of Regional Central Apprenticeship Advisor, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Northern Region, Kanpur is also affixed on the contract. Petitioner was finally awarded the National Apprenticeship Certificate which was issued by the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Training, which is placed at Annexure -A6 with the original application. He applied for engagement as Fresh Face Substitute in Railways. In this regard, a letter had been sent to the petitioner from the office of Divisional Manager (Establishment), Ajmer on 13.9.2004 seeking his consent for engagement as such and also submit his documents relating to the educational training, Apprenticeship, Caste and date of birth in two copies. The petitioner again received a letter from the office of Divisional Railway Manager (Establishment), Ajmer on 28.6.2006 whereby he was informed that the competent officer has given his approval for giving appointment to the petitioner in Group -D post. Therefore, he was asked to appear in the office on 12.7.2006 along with his original documents and photo -stat copies of the same were duly attested by the Gazetted Officer. Finally, he was given appointment as Fresh Face Substitute on the post of Gangman in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2610 -3540 in the office of Senior Section Engineer (Railway Board), Rani. Suddenly, however, he was relieved from duties on 21.6.2008 by the Senior Section Engineer (PW), Rani vide order dated 21.6.2008 to attend the office of Vigilance Branch at Jaipur. Petitioner reported at Vigilance Branch, Jaipur where the officers asked some questions about his certificate of apprenticeship and he replied the questions satisfactorily. When he reverted back to re -join, he was served with an order dated 24.9.2008 terminating his services. In the aforesaid order, it was mentioned that he has secured appointment on the basis of forged apprenticeship training certificate because during verification when the certificate was sent to RDAT, Kanpur and RDAT, Faridabad, it has not been found to be genuine.

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in reply to the original application justified their stand on the same premise, but the Regional Director of Apprenticeship Training, Kanpur which was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in his reply has replied in paras 2, 9 and 5 as under:

(3.) IT is a matter of regret and surprise that the Central Administrative Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner without caring to look into the reply filed by respondent No. 5 with the aforequoted submissions. No discussion whatsoever has been made by the Tribunal about the stand taken by the Regional Director of Apprenticeship Training, Kanpur even though this fact was cursorily mentioned in the last two lines of page 2 of the judgement. Surprisingly, the very impugned order of termination from service is founded on the premise that on verification from the said Directorate, the Apprenticeship Certificate has been found to be forged. We wish the Tribunal should have been more careful in deciding the Original Application.