- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 26-4-2002 passed in OA No. 1235 of 1997 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.
(2.) SRI Shrish Prasad Misra (respondent No. 1) was selected for the post of reserved train pool (RTP) assistant and sorting assistant and his services were regularised on the year 1990. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in July, 1994, on the ground that he had submitted a forged marks-sheet of High School Examination, which showed that he had secured 72 marks in Mathematics when in fact he had secured only 34 marks. The enquiry officer held that the document which showed that Respondent No. 1 had secured only 34 marks, had not been proved and accordingly submitted a report that the charge against him had not been established. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and after serving a memo of disagreement and after giving an opportunity of making a representation, awarded punishment of removal from service. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order of removal from service but the same was dismissed. He filed a revision against the said order which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad which was allowed and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and also by the appellate and revisional authorities were quashed, and it was directed that Respondent No. 1 will be reinstated with all consequential benefits with the rider that he will be entitled to 50 per cent of the wages during the period he had not worked. The main charge against Respondent No. 1 was that he had submitted a forged High School marks- sheet which showed that he had secured 72 marks in Mathematics when, in fact, he had secured only 34 marks. In the enquiry the department produced a letter from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board), which had been sent under the registered cover in response to the query made to it regarding marks secured by Respondent No. 1 in the High School Examination. According to the reply sent by the Board under its seal, and under registered cover, the Respondent No. 1 had secured only 34 marks in Mathematics, whereas in the marks-sheet submitted by him to the department, marks in Mathematics subject were mentioned as 72. The departmental enquiry was held on the ground of submission of forged marks-sheet. The main submission made on behalf of Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that the delinquent employee had not been given an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the document filed against him as the person who had prepared the document had not been examined as a witness. It was submitted that the verification letter dated 1-1-1994 sent by the Board had not been proved by the person who had prepared it or the person who was acquainted with his hand-writing and the denial of this opportunity to the delinquent employee vitiated the enquiry and the enquiry officer was perfectly justified in holding that the charge had not been established. The Tribunal accepted the contention made on behalf of the delinquent employee and quashed the order of punishment imposed upon him. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is being reproduced below : " (6 ). In our opinion, if this opportunity is not provided to the applicant, the purpose of holding the entire disciplinary proceedings is frustrated and it shall be against the principles of natural justice. In the present case the Inquiry Officer clearly holds that the department failed to prove this document by examining the witness and tallying the document with the original on the basis with which it was prepared and thus, the charge against the applicant cannot be said to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the view and has said that the document is proved as it was received under Registered cover. In our opinion, this view on the face of it, shows lack of legal knowledge on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. He could not appreciate the purpose of holding the disciplinary proceedings in which an opportunity is given to the delinquent official to defend himself. He has not suggested any other mode by which the opportunity could be given to the applicant to disprove the information dated 1-1-1994, or challenge its veracity. The disciplinary authority has clearly committed an error of law which vitiated the proceedings. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have also not been able to appreciate this serious aspect of the matter which went to the root of the case. " We have heard Sri B. N. Singh for the petitioner (Union of India) and Sri Swaraj Prakash for Sri Shrish Prasad Misra, Respondent No. 1 (delinquent employee) and have perused the record.
(3.) IN our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal that the department having failed to prove the document sent by the Board by examining the witness and tallying the document with the original on the basis of which it was prepared, the charge levelled against the employee had not been established is erroneous in law. The Board conducts examination of very large number of candidates every year. IN the year 2001, more than 33 lakhs students appeared in the High School and INtermediate examinations conducted by the Board of High School and INtermediate Education, U. P. Disputes regarding correctness or otherwise of the marks-sheet often arise. The long-standing practice is that if a query is made from the Board in accordance with the Rules and deposit of the prescribed fee, the Board sends the requisite information under its seal and in a registered cover. This document which is sent from the office of the Board is always accepted as correct. It is practically impossible for the Board to send one of its employees to prove the document every time a dispute arises. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. has been established in accordance with the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under Section 74 (1) (ii) of the Evidence Act, the records of the Board would be public documents. Under Section 77 of the Evidence Act certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public document of which they purport to be copies. Under Section 63 (1) of the Evidence Act certified copies formally issued would be secondary evidence and they are admissible under Section 65 (e) if the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the certified or authenticated copies sent by the Board under its seal are clearly admissible even in a Court of law where complete provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable. That apart, we fail to understand as to how the delinquent employee has been prejudiced on account of non-examination of the person who had prepared the document which was sent from the office of the Board confirming the fact that he had secured only 34 marks in Mathematics and not 72 as shown in the copy of the marks-sheet submitted by him to the department. The Board maintains a tabulation register where marks secured by a student are recorded. The Board merely sends a copy of the marks and the said copies are prepared from the tabulation register. The only function of the person making the document is to prepare a copy from the tabulation register. He is not the author of the document. A person preparing a certified copy or an authenticated copy of a public document is never required to appear as a witness to prove the copy prepared by him even in regular proceedings before a Court of law.;