- (1.) THE Petitioners, it appears, are aggrieved by the following directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal rendered in Original Application No. 893 of 2007 Naveen Kumar v. Union of India and others: In view of the above O.As. Are allowed. The impugned orders, namely, 22.12.2006, 13.7.2006, and 12.10.2006 in all the O.As. Are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents shall reinstate the Applicants and regularize period of their absence in accordance with the extant Rulers. They may refer the matter to the Screening Committee for due verification of the certificates and act on the basis of the decision thereof. The Applicants are not entitled for the time being to any payment of salary/back wages for the period they had been kept out of service. If the Screening Committee's recommendations are in favour of the Applicant the period of absence shall be treated as on duty with 50% back wages while the annual increment etc. would be offered as if no charge sheet were issued. In case the Screening Committee's decision goes against the interest of the Applicants, Respondents may take suitable action as they deem necessary.
(2.) WE have heard Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi for the Petitioners and Sri Shyamal Narain along with Sri Sajnu Ram, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 1. While assailing the impugned judgment and Order of the Tribunal dated 20.5.2011, Sri Singhal has submitted that the Tribunal has altogether carved out a new case unconcerned with the facts of the present case by applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. : (1994) 6 SCC 241 as this was not the case where caste is disputed but this was case of concealment of fact and filing of forged caste certificate while entering into service. In his submissions after applying the same the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application directing reinstatement, regularization of services of the Respondent No. 1 and payment of 50% back wages on the conclusion of the Screening Committee if it is found to be in favour of the Applicant. He has also submitted that a probationer has no right to the post and in view of the terms of the appointment letter dated 1.6.2004, the services of the Respondent No. 1 could be terminated at any time without there being any notice. In his further submissions the Respondent No. 1 has entered into service by filing a forged caste certificate issued by Anumandal Padadhikari, Mohaniya which was later on found to be false as the Anumandal Padadhikari has informed the Department during the verification that the said certificate was never issued by his office. In his submissions, a person entering in the service on the basis of a forged certificate will have no right to continue in the service. He has again submitted that the equity is not in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the Tribunal has erred in remitting the matter before the Screening Committee for verification of the caste certificate, as it was not a case of belonging of the Respondent No. 1 to a particular caste but the charges was with regard to filing of a forged certificate before the authority concerned. In his further submissions even if during the enquiry if there was any flaw in the enquiry proceedings, that will not vitiate the termination order as the probationer has no right to the post. In support of his submissions, Sri Singhal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2010 (2) SCC 169.
(3.) REFUTING the submissions of Sri Singhal, Sri Shyamal Narain, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 1, has submitted that if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the mis -application of Madhuri Patil's case on the ground that the law laid down in that very case were not at all attracted, then it was for the Petitioners to raise this point before the Tribunal. He has also submitted that the enquiry has not proceeded in accordance with the rules as the letter of the Anumandal Padadhikari relied upon the enquiry officer was never proved. He has also submitted that in view of sub para 14 of Para 13 of Madhuri Patils case (supra), if the caste certificate is found to be false, then it was to be referred to the Screening Committee and on the basis of the letter of the Anumandal Padadhikari the services of the Respondent No. 1 could not have been terminated. He has also submitted that it is well settled that a probationer has no right to the post and the services of the probationer can be terminated at any time without any notice but it is also equally settled that once an order of termination is passed on the basis of certain charges after holding the disciplinary proceedings under the rules, then the enquiry has to be conducted in accordance with the rules because the foundation of the termination order is the charges contained in the charge sheet and those charges are required to be proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules which is not there.;