- (1.) The petitioner, who is working as Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts, challenged the charge sheet dated 6.5.2016 issued to him by the department under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules) by filing Original Application No.1135 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (the Tribunal). The main charge against the petitioner was that the caste certificate dated 20 August 1981 issued by Tehsildar, Lakshmangarh, district Alwar, Rajasthan certifying that the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe (Meena) had been cancelled by order dated 25 November 2010. The cancellation was effected after holding an enquiry in which it transpired that the petitioner had never been a resident of village Gahlawata, District Alwar as represented by him while obtaining the caste certificate. He was found to be a permanent resident of village Khushalpur, Tehsil Bilsi, District Budaun. He has thus been charged of procuring appointment by furnishing wrong information.
(2.) Before the Tribunal, the petitioner also made a prayer for grant of interim relief for staying the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet. However, by the impugned order dated 9 September 2016, the prayer for interim relief has been rejected fixing 27 September 2016 as the next date in the main case.
(3.) It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has instituted Civil Suit No.7 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Laxmangarh, district Alwar challenging the orders passed by the authorities cancelling the caste certificate dated 20 August 1981. It is further pointed out that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Rajasthan High Court arising out of proceedings for grant of interim injunction, a direction was issued to the Civil Court to decide the proceedings of the suit within a period of 12 months. It is urged that since the issue relating to the validity of the orders cancelling the caste certificate is res integra and thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of the impugned charge sheet, deserves to be stayed. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. Vs. Girish V & others, 2014 3 SCC 636.;