ARUN PALLI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was dismissed from service, duly preceded by a regular departmental inquiry, on the ground that she i.e.Jaswinder Kaur daughter of Sh.Maluk Singh and wife of Sh.Sumitter Singh obtained employment as Telephone Operator under DET (now GMT) Jalandhar, fraudulently by submitting a fake certificate dated 15.11.1972 of Higher Secondary Part I, Examination held in March 1972 and also a fake certificate dated 23.10.1973 of Higher Secondary Part II Examination held in March 1973 and Roll No.100308 in proof of her academic qualification. Thus, she by grave misconduct on her part exhibited lack of integrity and contravened the provisions of Rule 3.1 (i) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. This is what led the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
(2.) AS is discernible from the records, the petitioner sought to assail the departmental action before the Tribunal primarily on two counts: (i) at the time of passing of the impugned order she was holding the post of Telephone Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 -2300 (Annexure A -17). Her grievance was that in the case of Telephone Supervisor (LSG) and JTOs, the appointing authority is either the General Manager, Telecom or the Deputy General Manager, Telecom and since no power vests with the Divisional Engineer, Phones, he was not a competent authority to pass an order of dismissal. (ii) That the certificates (as referred to above) were true and genuine and were duly issued by the Punjab School Education Board. There was no fabrication. Hence the finding of guilt which has been recorded against her was perverse and untenable. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner (applicant), that her order of dismissal from service was not passed by the competent authority was rejected by the Tribunal. And in our opinion, rightly so. The analysis of Annexure A -17 ( at page 77 of the paper book), which was sought to be relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate her case, itself, irresistibly shows that the decision regarding the placement of the applicant in the next higher grade of Rs. 1400 -2300 was under a policy decision under which the staff are given the benefit of placement in the next higher scale of pay, while the cadre of incumbents remains the same. In fact, on completion of 16 years of service on the post of Lady Telephone Operator, the petitioner was placed in the higher grade of Rs. 1400 -2300 w.e.f.23.01.1993 vide Annexure A -17 (supra). Hence, merely by virtue of her placement in the higher scale of pay, she does not become holder of the post in the lower selection grade. Annexure R6 (at page 163 of the paper book), further makes this position abundantly clear, issued by the Ministry of Communications, Government of India, vide letter dated 12.07.1995, as to who are the appointing authorities in Grade III and IV after employees are placed in higher grade under the BCR scheme. It has been duly indicated that appointing authority in Grade III and IV cadres under the BCR will be the same as in the case of their respective basic cadres. It may be expedient and necessary, at this stage, to refer to the said letter dated 12.07.1995 (Annexure R -6), relevant portion whereof reads as thus: "xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx With reference to your letter No. Staff/BCR/DPC/R1g/63 dated 2.3.95 on the above noted subject. I am directed to clarify that appointing authorities in Grade III and IV cadres under BCR scheme will be same as in the case of respective basic cadres." At this stage, it may also be crucial to refer to another document i.e.Annexure R5 (at page 162 of the paper book), which is an extract from P & T Manual, Vol.III Schedule Part VI -General Central Services, Class III, which gives the hierarchy and mentions the appointing authorities and the competent authority to impose penalties as mentioned therein, on reading whereof makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.5 happen to be the appointing as well as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The relevant portion whereof, reads as thus: P & T Manual Vol.III, Schedule Part VI -General Central Services, Class III Description of Appointing Authority competent to impose penalties & Posts Authority penalties which it may impose (with reference to item numbers in Rule 13) Authority Penalties Appellate Authority 1 2 3 4 5 Xxx Xxx Xxx Xxx Xxx All other posts Divisional Divisional All Director of Engineer, Engineer, Telegraphs; Telegraphs Telegraphs Director of Posts and Telegraphs This being so, there could hardly be any doubt insofar as competence and power of the Divisional Engineer, to pass an order of punishment against the petitioner.
(3.) EVEN on merits, the Tribunal, on a thorough consideration and analysis of the records found that the matter before the Tribunal was of getting employment on the basis of forged document which apparently belonged to the sister of the applicant. It was also observed that a reading of the inquiry report shows that there was sufficient material before the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion that the articles of charges levelled against the applicant stood fully proved. A reference was also made to the inquiries conducted by Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Superintendent of Police to say that the same were solicited only for the purposes of arriving at an opinion at the stage of issuing a charge sheet. Therefore, these would not nullify the facts which were duly proved and substantiated in the disciplinary proceedings. We may also note that the respondent -Department had entered into correspondence with the Punjab School Education Board and eventually found that the petitioner had used the certificates which did not belong to her for getting employment. Assertion of the petitioner that respondents should have examined the Secretary of the Board, who had signed the letter, showing that the applicant had not appeared in the particular examination, also did not find favour with the Tribunal, as it was observed that Annexure A -9 was an application for the job and there again it was doubtful as to what exactly was the date of birth of the petitioner as some tampering appeared to have been done. The Tribunal also opined viz -a -viz its jurisdiction to interfere in matter of such a nature as it was only in a case of no evidence the Tribunal could interfere. Since there was some evidence on the basis whereof a conclusion could safely be arrived at, as arrived by the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal chose not to go into the sufficiency of the evidence. Having perused the record and the inquiry report in particular, it was recorded in no uncertain terms that the principles of natural justice were fully adhered to. The grievance which had been made before the Tribunal that certain documents, despite having asked for, were never supplied to the petitioner, was also rejected as the petitioner failed to substantiate as to how the said documents were relevant and also as to what prejudice was suffered by the petitioner on account of denial of the copies thereof.;