- (1.) This special appeal is from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22 September 2014. While dismissing the petition the learned Single Judge has specifically recorded a finding that the petition was filed on the basis of false averments and by setting up misleading facts; that the appellant continued in service even after attaining the age of superannuation on 13 September 2009 on the strength of an interim order which was obtained on the basis of a material suppression and that, in consequence, it would be open to the employer bank to recover the salary paid to the appellant with effect from 1 October 2009. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1 lac.
(2.) The appellant was appointed on 24 August 1982 by the Bank of Baroda as a Class-IV employee. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant on 7 December 1993 alleging that he had submitted a school leaving certificate of C.A.V. Inter College, Allahabad stating that his date of birth was 30 October 1962 while seeking employment in the bank. The charge sheet alleged that the school leaving certificate was found to be fabricated since, as a matter of fact, the appellant had studied in the Kesar Vidya Peeth Inter College, Allahabad from where he had passed the examination from the U P Board in second division with 45.6% marks in 1965 and according to the record of the school, the actual date of birth of the appellant is 12 September 1949. Hence, it is alleged that the appellant had obtained appointment in the service of the bank by producing a false certificate of his educational qualifications and age, otherwise he would not have been eligible for selection in the subordinate cadre.
(3.) During the course of disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was represented by a defence representative on 21 March 1998. The Presenting Officer produced several documents including the High School mark sheet of the appellant and the High School certificate of 1967. At that stage, the appellant made a statement that he was admitting the charges voluntarily and in token whereof, he was marking his signature on the order sheet recording his admission. The order sheet was signed both by the appellant and by his defence representative, apart from Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer. The admission was in the following terms: "I Biren Lal Gupta voluntarily admit the charges as framed under the charge sheet served on me. I am admitting these charges voluntarily and without any pressure and coercion. I am putting my signatures to this effect, in my knowledge of during admitted the charges. I am also making request that lenient view may kindly be taken".;