Appointment obtained via fake certificates is void ab initio and unaffected by length of service.

Late Jagannath Majhi (original applicant, substituted by his widow after death [para. 1]) was appointed as a Semi-Skilled Worker at Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL) in 1993 under the "Local Displaced Person" category.

In 2014, after 21 years of service, he was issued a charge sheet alleging he submitted a fake displacement certificate (No. 4921/1983) purportedly issued by the Tahasildar, Rajgangpur.

An inquiry was conducted where the charges were found "established".

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed the penalty of "Removal" from service on 16.05.2016, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 11.07.2016.

The applicant challenged these orders on grounds of lack of competence of the DA, procedural irregularities, and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and concluded by competent authorities as per the delegated powers.

2. Whether the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the denial of adjournments and the opportunity to cross-examine.

3. Whether a government job secured through a fake certificate can be protected by a long tenure of service.

The court applied Clauses 28(iv) and 28(xxviii) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company regarding misconduct for providing false information.

It relied on Personal Policy Circular No. 654 and the circular dated 28.07.1993 regarding the delegation of disciplinary powers to non-executive levels.

The court strictly followed the standards for judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [para. 14] and Union of India v. P. Gunasekharan, which limit the Tribunal's power to re-appreciate evidence.

Finally, it applied the doctrine from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar, which mandates that appointments secured through fake certificates are void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary powers were validly delegated to the concerned officials via internal policy circulars, which the applicant failed to refute with documentary evidence.

Regarding the alleged violation of natural justice, the Tribunal noted that the Inquiry Officer granted adjournments on over 25 separate dates, yet the applicant failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the genuineness of his displacement certificate.

The Tribunal emphasized that under judicial review, it cannot act as an appellate court to re-weigh evidence if the inquiry was held by a competent officer and followed a fair procedure.

The core evidence—reports from the ADM Rourkela and Tahasildar Rajgangpur confirming that no such certificate was ever issued—remained uncontroverted.

It reaffirmed that securing employment through fraud or fake documentation is a grave misconduct that cannot be validated by the length of service.

The Original Application was dismissed, upholding the order of "Removal" from service.

No costs were awarded.