Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5868 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Supdt. Of Post Offices and Ors.
RESPONDENT:
R. Valasina Babu
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2006
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA. J.
Leave granted
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.2005
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh whereby and
whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, assailing the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated
22.4.1999 in the Original Application filed by the respondent herein, was
allowed.
Respondent herein claimed himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste
community known as ‘Mal’’. He was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the
office of Superintendent of Post Offices. Adilabad Postal Division on
28.7.1980 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes community. In
support of his claim that he belonged to ‘Mala’ community, he had produced
a certificate dated 27.12.1980. On an information received that the
respondent in fact belonged to Christian community, a disciplinary
proceeding against him was initiated, During the pendency of the said
inquiry proceedings, the Collector, Adilabad District also initiated a
proceeding for cancellation of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of
the respondent and by an order dated 28.11.1990 the Caste Certificate
granted in his favour was cancelled. The said order was brought on records
of the disciplinary proceedings.
The inquiry Officer, however, opined that keeping in view the fact that on
the date when the charge memo dated 1.3.1989 was issued, the certificate
produced by the respondent having not been cancelled, the same cannot be
said to have been proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the
said finding of the Inquiry Officer, Before the disciplinary authority also
the said Caste Certificate dated 28.11.1990 was produced. Another
opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent by the Disciplinary
Authority. By an order dated 30.9.1992 it was held as follows:
"Considering all the aspects of the case and the fact that the
Govt. Servant furnished false information at the time of
appointment. I, P. Pandu, Supdt. Of Post Office, Adilabad
Division-504001 hereby order that Shri R. Valasina Babu, Postal
Assistant Adilabad Division be ‘dismissed’ from service with
immediate effect which shall ordinarily be a dis-qualification for
future employment under the Government."
A departmental appeal preferred there against was dismissed.
Questioning the said order of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of
the Appellate Authority, an Original Application was filed by the
respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By reason of a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench refused to take into consideration the event which had
taken place subsequent to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings,
namely, the order dated 28.11.1990 passed by the Collector, Karimnagar
cancelling the Cast Certificate granted in favour of the respondent as the
same was not a subject matter in the Charge Memo dated 1.3.1989. It was
opined that as the said order was not annexed with the charge sheet the
same could not have been taken into consideration by the disciplinary
Authority. It was, however, directed as follows:
"The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the applicant,
if they so desire, on the basis of the order passed by the
Collector, Karimnagar dated 28.11.1990 canceling the Certificate of
Caste dated 27.12.1980, produced by the applicant. Before doing so,
they may ascertain whether the said cancellation order dated
28.11.1990 pertains to the Certificate of Caste produced by the
applicant dated 27.12.1980."
The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment although noticed the said
fact but agreeing with the judgment of the Tribunal dismissed the writ
petition. The appellant is, thus, before us.
The short question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the
Disciplinary Authority and consequently the Appellate Authority could have
taken into consideration the subsequent event in the Departmental
proceedings.
Mr. Gururaja Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would submit that the certificate produced by the respondent
having never been the subject matter of the inquiry proceedings before the
Collector, the purported order dated 27.2.1980 was wholly inadmissible in
law. It was, furthermore, submitted that no opportunity of hearing having
been given to the respondent by the Collector in relation therein, the same
could not have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority
or by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel drawing our attention to the
operative portion of the judgment of the Tribunal would contend that
although a fresh departmental proceeding could be initiated, the same
having not been taken recourse to, it is impermissible for the appellants
now to rest their case on the order of the Collector.
Equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
envisage that all the citizens of India shall get an opportunity to be
considered for appointment in all the civil posts. Clause (4) of Article
16, however, provides for an exception. When a public employment is
obtained on a vacancy reserved for a particular category of candidate, he
must fulfill the criteria laid down therefor. When the vacancy was to be
filled by a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes candidate for whom the
post was created, the candidate must be one who belongs to that category.
If the selectee does not fulfill the said basic criteria, his appointment
cannot be allowed to be continued. It is not in dispute that the vacancy in
question was reserved for the Scheduled Castes candidate. It is also not
disputed that the respondent obtained appointment in the post of Postal
Assistant on the premise that he was a member of Scheduled Caste being
belonging to ‘Mala’ community. It has furthermore not been denied or
disputed that a proceeding was initiated by the Collector of Adilabad
District. Before us the said order dated 28.11.1990 has been produced by
the respondent himself; from a bare perusal whereof it would appear that
the respondent was given an opportunity of hearing in the proceeding
initiated by the said authority. Therein it was categorically held that
despite several opportunities having been given and despite the fact that
the respondent had promised that he would produce the relevant documents in
support of his case in the second or third week of June, 1990, he failed
and/or neglected to do so. On the aforementioned premise the learned
Collector, Adilabad District observed as follows.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
"...The Superintendent of Post Offices, Adilabad informed through
his letter dated 16.7.1990 that this office Memo dated 5.7.1990
could not be served on the said Ramdas Velisina Babu as he was on
medical leave upto 18.6.1990 The respondent neither filed any
documentary evidence as called for in this office memo dated
28.3.1990 nor filed any petition seeking time to file the
documentary evidence."
In view of the above and under the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 282
SWD dated 19.12.1988 the Caste Certificate No. A8/20293/79 dated
3.10.1979 issued by the then Tahsildar karimnagar as belonging
‘Mala’ caste in favour of Sri Ramdas Valisina Babu S/o Mallikarjuna
Rao r/o Karimnagar is hereby cancelled."
Once the certificate on the basis whereof the respondent obtained
employment stood cancelled, even no question of allowing him to continue in
service would arise, if he had been appointed on the basis of such a
Certificate.
The date of Caste Certificate as was emphasized by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent, in our opinion, is not of much
significance. The certificate might have originally been issued by one
officer of the department but similar certificate on subsequent date might
have been issued by another officer of the department. It is also not
correct to contend that no opportunity of hearing was given to the
respondent by the Collector.
The crux of the matter, therefore, was as to whether the respondent belongs
to the Scheduled Caste community or not. If he was not, the question as to
whether the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him relying on and on
the basis of a particular Caste Certificate, in our opinion, pales into
insignificance. Furthermore, the Tribunal and the High Court were not
correct in holding that in the departmental proceedings no subsequent event
could be taken into consideration. We have reproduced hereinbefore the
order of the Collector from a perusal whereof it would appear that the said
proceeding was initiated at the instance of the Superintendent of Post
Offices. Thus, the respondent was aware of the fact that a proceeding had
been initiated against him for cancellation of the certificate before the
competent authority. Once the Caste Certificate issued by the Revenue
Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh issued in favour of the
respondent is cancelled, the original certificate on the basis whereof
another certificate was obtained would be non-est in the eye of law. Any
other or further certificate issued on the basis shall also be non-est.
In the aforementioned situation, we see no reason as to why the inquiry
officer or for that matter disciplinary authority could not have taken into
consideration the subsequent event. Moreover, as noticed hereinbefore, the
disciplinary authority had given another opportunity of hearing and the
respondent availed the same. He also preferred an appeal against the order
of the disciplinary authority. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal as
also the High Court, in our opinion, committed a manifest error of law in
allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent on the premise
that the said order dated 18.11.1990 passed by the Collector should not
have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority or by the
Appellate Authority.
The question in regard to effect of obtaining appointment by producing
false certificate came up for consideration in State of Maharashtra & Ors.
v. Ravi Prakash Babulasing Parmar & Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 575, wherein this
Court opined that the concerned authorities would have jurisdiction to go
into the said question and pass an appropriate order. The effect of
cancellation of such Caste Certificate had also been noticed in the light
of two Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bank of India & Anr. v.
Arinash D. Mandirkar & Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690, wherein it was held that if
the employee concerned having played fraud in obtaining an appointment, he
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
should not be allowed to get the benefits thereof, as the foundation of
appointment collapses.
In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in a case of this
nature, it might not have been necessary to initiate any disciplinary
proceeding against the respondent.
For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.