- (1.) The writ petitioner was appointed as an AGIII(Depot) in the Food Corporation of India under the Senior Regional Manager, West Bengal in the year 1997, as a schedule tribe candidate. By a memorandum dated 10th February, 2004 an article of charge was framed against him being that he had obtained appointment on production of a schedule tribe caste certificate in his favour which later came to be detected as a manufactured and forged document and thus violated regulations 31(a), 32(A(1), (4), (5) and (30) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 (as amended). An enquiry was held and report thereof dated 10th March, 2005 made. It appears from the said report that the inquiry officer came to the finding that the caste certificate bearing page No. 6027 was issued in the name of one Sri Labeshwar Murmu as would appear from the documents produced in evidence and as such in his view the prosecution had been successful in establishing the allegation contained in the first part of the document exhibited as P2 being the letter dated 17th December, 2003 from the office of the S.D.O., Asansol to the District Manager Food Corporation of India. The Inquiry Officer, however, went on to find that in his opinion the charge that the caste certificate produced by the charged officer was manufactured and forged could not be established by the prosecution and went on to hold that the charge framed against the writ petitioner was proved partially to the extent reported. The disciplinary authority thereafter by its order dated 5th October, 2005 agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer as embodied in his report. The said authority's considered view was that, inter alia, the charge was proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the writ petitioner had produced a fake scheduled tribe caste certificate to avail himself of employment in F.C.I. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred upon the disciplinary authority by regulation 59(4) of the F.C.I. Staff Regulations, 1971 (as amended) the said authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the writ, petitioner.
(2.) The writ petitioner has come up by this writ petition challenging the said charge-sheet, inquiry proceedings as well as the order of the disciplinary authority. It appears that an appeal though had been preferred by the writ petitioner but the writ petitioner has come up in the meantime with the challenge that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of dismissal was in violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the letter being the said exhibit 'P2' which was held to be partially proved by the inquiry officer was itself a doubtful document. It was because of that letter that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against his client. It would appear on the face of that letter that it was signed as for the Sub-Divisional Officer, Asansol on a date preceding the date of the letter. Furthermore, the specific plea of his client to call the said S.D.O., Asansol, whose signature appears on the caste and for whom the said letter dated 17th December, 2003, exhibit-'P2' was signed the date before, was refused by the inquiry officer. This was in gross violation of a fair opportunity to defend the charge levelled against his client. He further drew my attention to the inquiry report, where according to him, in spite of best evidence not being taken, the inquiry officer had still come to the finding that the charge was partially proved. He submitted that when the charge relates to a document being forged a finding of partial proof of such charge was absurd. A document according to him would be found to be either genuine or forged. Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on the following decisions for the proposition that denial of opportunity to the defence to lead evidence amounted to a serious breach in the procedure of giving a fair opportunity of hearing. a) State of U.P. & Anr. v. C.S. Sharma, 1968 AIR(SC) 158; b) Govind Shankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 1963 AIR(MP) 115; and c) S.N. Sur v. Divisional Superintendent Eastern Railway & Ors.,1969 LabIC 773.;