(Order of the Court was made by C.NAGAPPAN, J.) The petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 13.2.2009, made in O.A.No.403 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.
2. There is no dispute in the factual matrix. The first respondent herein M.Pandeeswaran was recruited for the post of "Sepoy" in the Department of the petitioners under the quota reserved for the members of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of Community Certificate No.2995007 (Sl.No.1415/88) dated 20.12.1988 purportedly issued from Madurai South Taluk Office, produced by the first respondent and the first respondent joined service on 27.12.1995 in the rank of "Sepoy". On a complaint from one Pandiammal from Madurai alleging that the first respondent joined service by producing false community certificate, the matter was referred to the District Collector, Madurai to ascertain the genuineness of the community Certificate and the District Collector, Madurai in his letter dated 27.3.1996 stated that the community certificate produced by the first respondent is forged one and consequently the first respondent was terminated from service on 19.4.1996 and he challenged the order by filing Original Application in O.A.No.615 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal by order, dated 28.11.1996, set aside the termination order on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the first respondent and gave liberty to the Department to proceed afresh. Accordingly the first respondent was reinstated in service on 26.12.1996 and notice dated 17.1.1997 was issued to him calling for his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he submitted a fake community certificate. The first respondent, in his reply dated 12.2.1997, stated that he belongs to "Kattu Naicken" Community and the community certificate produced by him was obtained by his father, who was an illiterate, with the assistance of some middlemen. In the meanwhile, on the complaint given by the Tahsildar, Madurai, a criminal case came to be registered for the alleged offences under
Sections 467,468,471 and
420 IPC against the first respondent and after investigation, the final report was taken on file as C.C.No.151 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. After trial, the learned Magistrate held that though the community certificate concerned was a fake one, the prosecution has not proved that it was recovered at the instance of the accused and hence the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the charges by judgment dated 9.5.2001. The first respondent submitted letter on 12.3.2008 to the Department informing about his acquittal in the criminal case. The petitioners Department issued charge memo, dated 31.3.2008 to the first respondent, for having produced a fake community certificate and the first respondent filed his written statement of defence on 23.4.2008 denying the charge and sought for personal hearing and the same was given and the hearing took place on 22.5.2008 and the first respondent handed over a letter dated 22.5.2008 enclosing a xerox copy of the judgment dated 9.5.2001 delivered by the Criminal Court. The Disciplinary Authority held that the recruitment of the first respondent was solely made on the basis of the community certificate produced by him and on the verification made by the Districty Authorities, it is established that the community certificate was not issued from Madurai South Taluk Office; the number of the Community Certificate was not assigned to that Office; Sri.M.Muthusamy was not serving as Tahsildar on 20.12.1988; the signature found in the said community certificate did no tally with the signature of the Tahsildar Sri.M.Muthusamy; the community certificate produced by the first respondent was a bogus one and the Criminal Court also, in the judgment, observed that the community certificate was a forged one and by so holding, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the first respondent from service. Challenging the order, the first respondent preferred Original Application in O.A.No.403 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal framed only issue as to whether the Department is competent to terminate the services of the petitioner without getting a report either from the District Level Vigilance Committee or from the State Level Scrutiny Committee with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by him and held that no enquiry was conducted to verify the genuineness of the community certificate and no order has been passed cancelling the community certificate and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for and in that view of the matter, set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and directed the Department to reinstate the Delinquent in service with continuity of service and gave liberty to the Department to proceed in accordance with law. The Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal in the present writ petition and has sought for quashing the same.
3. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for Central Excise appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Tribunal has erred in construing the bogus community certificate as having been issued by the Authority and its conclusion that a definite finding was not rendered about the genuineness of the community either by the Scrutiny Committee or by the District Collector and no final order has been passed cancelling the community certificate, is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submits that the first respondent indeed belongs to 'Kattunaicken' Community and the observation of the Criminal Court pertaining to the community certificate alone is not sufficient and the genuineness of the community certificate can be gone into only by the Scrutiny Committee and no definite finding was rendered and no order cancelling the community certificate has been made and the conclusion of the Tribunal is sustainable.
5. The Point for consideration is as to whether the Community Certificate dated 20.12.1988 purportedly issued from Madurai South Taluk Office and produced by the first respondent at the time of appointment, is a bogus one. It is not in dispute that based on the above certificate, the first respondent came to be appointed as "Sepoy" under the quota reserved for members of Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to a complaint, the above Community certificate produced by the first respondent was referred to the District Collector, Madurai to ascertain as to whether it is a true one or not and the Collector in his report, dated 27.3.1996, confirmed that the above certificate is a forged one. Consequently, the first respondent was terminated from service on 19.4.1996, but however, the Tribunal set aside that order on the ground that no opportunity was given to the Delinquent to explain his case and gave liberty to the Department to proceed afresh. Thereupon the first respondent came to be reinstated and in the meanwhile, on the complaint pertaining to the above community certificate, a criminal case came to be registered and a trial was held against the first respondent and though the Criminal Court held that the Community Certificate was a forged one, it gave the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that the certificate was not recovered from him.
6. The present charge memo, dated 31.3.2008, was issued for having produced a fake community certificate and the first respondent took part in the enquiry by filing written statement and a personal hearing was given and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority held that the community certificate produced by the first respondent was not issued from Madurai South Taluk Office; no such number was assigned to that office; Sri M.Muthusamy was not served as Tahsildar on the relevant date; the signature found in the community certificate did not tally with the signature of Tahsildar M.Muthusamy and the Criminal Court also found that the community certificate is a forged one and by so holding, the Delinquent was dismissed from service.
7. The Tribunal framed issue as to whether the Department is competent to terminate the services of the Delinquent without getting a report either from the District Level Vigilance Committee or from the State Level Scrutiny Committee with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by the applicant/first respondent herein. The issue framed does not arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The question is as to whether the Community Certificate produced by the first respondent is a bogus one. In other words, whether the community certificate produced by the first respondent was issued by the Tahsildar as claimed by him, is the point. The issue is not one with regard to the genuineness of the Community with which the first respondent belongs to but the genuineness of the Certificate itself.
8. The community certificate was purportedly issued from Madurai South Taluk Office by the Tahsildar Mr.M.Muthusamy and he was examined in the criminal case and he has testified that he did not function as Tahsildar on the date found in the certificate and the signature in the certificate is not his and a finding has been rendered by the Criminal Court that the Community certificate is a bogus certificate. The Disciplinary Authority has independently considered the question on the basis of reports submitted by the District Authorities on the community certificate produced by the first respondent and concluded that the community certificate was not issued from Madurai South Taluk Office and the number found therein was not assigned to the said office and Mr.M.Muthusamy had not served as Tahsildar on the date found in the community certificate and the signature found in the community certificate did not tally with the signature of Tahsildar Mr.M.Muthusamy and concluded that the community certificate produced by the first respondent is a bogus one.
9. The question of verifying the genuineness of the Community Certificate as to the correctness of the claim made by the person to whom it is issued and as to whether he belongs to the community mentioned therein, would arise only if the Community Certificate is not a bogus one and then only the direction given by the Apex Court in MADHURI PATIL'S CASE [AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94] would come into play and that situation does not arise in the facts of the present case.
10. As already seen, the Disciplinary Authority conducted enquiry after giving due opportunity to the first respondent and came to an independent conclusion that the community certificate produced by the first respondent herein is a bogus one. In our considered view, the Tribunal misdirected itself by framing a wrong issue and its finding is unsustainable both on facts and in law. The petitioners are entitled to the prayer sought for in the writ petition.