Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 199 of 2010(R) dated 19th July, 2013 which is annexed as Annexure 9 to the memo of petition. Application preferred by this petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the respondents -Railway authority has been upheld.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the charge -sheet was issued to this petitioner on 22nd December, 2003 and the alleged misconduct was violation of Rule 3.1(i), (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services Condition Rules, 1966. It is alleged by the respondents -authorities that this petitioner had presented false and fabricated mark -sheets of Matriculation, Intermediate Science (Maths Honors) and Bachelor of Science. Thereafter, ex parte enquiry was conducted and without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without giving any enquiry report to this petitioner, the disciplinary authority has dismissed this petitioner from services of the respondents on 10th November, 2005, which was challenged by this petitioner in O.A. No. 199 of 2010(R) before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that the petitioner was in jail during the period running from 14th June, 2004 to 15th September, 2004 and during this period, the departmental proceeding was conducted. Thus, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Moreover, the Tribunal has also not appreciated the fact that the Enquiry Officer has also not given his report to this petitioner. Moreover, the criminal case for the same very charge is also pending. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 199 of 2010(R) dated 19th July, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the respondents -authorities in holding the enquiry; adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this petitioner; petitioner has presented false and fabricated mark -sheet of Matriculation examination; similarly he has also presented forged and fabricated mark -sheet of Intermediate Science (Maths) as well as forged and fabricated mark -sheet of Bachelor of Science has been produced for getting promotion. Therefore, charge -sheet was issued upon the delinquent -petitioner on 22nd December, 2003 for violation of Rule 3.1(i), (ii) & (iii) of Railway Service Conditions Rules, 1966. Deliberately this petitioner has not remained present before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, as per Rule 1966 enquiry was conducted and completed. The report was given by the Enquiry Officer on 4th January, 2005, disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal on 10th November, 2005. Meanwhile, this petitioner has time & again moved the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal and it has been held by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 06 of 2008 in the order dated 8th September, 2009 which was preferred by this petitioner that there is no illegality in holding the disciplinary enquiry, adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this petitioner by Enquiry Officer and no prejudice has been caused to this petitioner due to non -supply of enquiry report. These aspects of the matter have been highlighted in paragraph 8, 9 and 11 of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 06 of 2008 dated 8th September, 2009. This order has never been challenged by the petitioner. On the contrary, this order has been accepted by this petitioner. Thus, the said order has attained its finality. Thereafter, the appellate authority re -decided the matter after giving further adequate opportunity of being heard and confirmed the order of dismissal of this petitioner which is again challenged by way of O.A. No. 199 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 19th July, 2013. It has also been rightly held by the Central Administrative Tribunal while passing the impugned order that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner during the departmental proceedings as well as during hearing before the appellate authority. Thus, there is no procedural defect in holding the departmental enquiry. Therefore, now the question left out is quantum of punishment. It is further submitted by the respondents that looking to the nature of misconduct of presentation of forged and fabricated mark -sheets of Matriculation, Intermediate Science (Maths) and Bachelor of Science (Maths, Honors), fetched adequate punishment of dismissal from the respondents -authorities. It cannot be said that this punishment is shockingly disproportionate nor is unreasonably excessive. Presentation of forged and fabricated educational qualification on more than one occasions reflects positive action on his part which is premeditated and predesigned action. Such type of employees cannot continue in the services of Railway authority. This aspect of the matter has properly been appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.
(3.) HAVING heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The petitioner was employed as Gang -man in the respondents -Railway authorities. (ii) The over -ambitious delinquent petitioner, to get promotion on the post of Supervisor, presented false and fabricated mark -sheets of Matriculation, later on of Intermediate Science (Maths) and thereafter again, false and fabricated mark -sheet of Bachelor of Science with Maths was presented. The fertile mind of this delinquent -petitioner with all probity of mathematics of life was caught by the respondents -Railway authorities. Upon proper verification it was found that all the three mark -sheets were false and fabricated. These facts have been highlighted in detail in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents -Railway. (iii) Enquiry Officer was appointed, enquiry was conducted after giving adequate opportunity of being heard, report was given by the Enquiry Officer on 4th January, 2005. (iv) Delinquent -petitioner, who has produced false and fabricated mark -sheets including of Bachelor of Science with Maths, with all calculation, have filed more than one Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal at different intervals. One of such Original Applications is O.A. No. 06 of 2008 which was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 8th September, 2009 in which in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 it has been observed as under: - "8. It is an admitted position that the applicant was in jail custody in C.B.I. Case and he remained in custody till 15.9.04 and was released on 16.9.04. It is hence obvious that he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer on the dates fixed in the proceeding prior to 16.9.04. The case of the respondents is that after his release there was a date fixed on 21.9.04. The applicant has also admitted this. However, admittedly, he did not attend the proceeding on that date. The explanation of the applicant is that his mother had received the notice when he was in custody and he had no knowledge of it and after the expiration of the date he came to know of it. The explanation, however, cannot be accepted. The O.A. shows that after his release from custody he came to know about the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and and also the date of 21.9.04 fixed for the enquiry proceeding. Hence if he could not know these facts, it is not understandable as to how he could not know about the notice fixing 21.9.04 as date fixed in the proceeding. Besides this, the applicant had been knowing that a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him. He was also knowing as to who the Enquiry Officer was. Therefore if he really had intended to contest the charges, he would, after his release, have tried to contact the Enquiry Officer but instead of that he sent his representation to D.R.M. To inform him about the next date fixed in the enquiry. This also indicates his evading tendency. To crown it all, it appears from the order dated 5.9.05 passed in O.A. No. 312/04 that the applicant was directed to present himself within two weeks before the Enquiry Officer to seek a date, but there is nothing to show that he had complied with the order. On the other hand he sent a letter on 21.11.05 to the D.R.M. To direct the Enquiry Officer to initiate to him the date of enquiry. This letter shows that as per the direction of the Tribunal in the O.A. On 5.9.2005, the applicant had filed non -engagement certificate to receive subsistence allowance, but it is strange that he did not care to present himself before the Enquiry Officer for ascertaining the next date fixed. The applicant in his rejoinder to the written statement has stated that he had appeared before the Enquiry Officer but neither in the letter to the D.R.M. nor in his O.A. He has stated that he had personally appeared before the Enquiry Officer. This is hence an after -thought. 9. Therefore, it appears that the applicant knowingly did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 21.9.04 the date fixed in the proceeding. It also appears that though he was directed on 5.9.05 by this Tribunal to present himself before the Enquiry Officer and seek a date, he deliberately did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Hence it appears that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant to participate in the enquiry, but as the applicant did not appear, the enquiry was held ex parte and the order was passed thereon. So neither the enquiry proceeding nor the order passed by the Enquiry Officer is vitiated. There appears no infirmity in the Appellate order on this count. 11. Without discussing as to whether there was proper service of the enquiry report or not, it is now settled that non -supply of the enquiry report would affect the punishment order only when prejudice has been caused to the employee and it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Vishwa Mohan; : AIR 1998 SC 2311 that the where the delinquent had an opportunity to assail the findings of the Enquiry Authority in the statement of appeal, it cannot be said that non -supply of the enquiry report, before imposition of penalty, caused prejudice to the delinquent. In this case also the applicant has admitted that he had received a copy of the enquiry report along with the order of Disciplinary Authority removing him. He has also filed an appeal. So no prejudice appears to have been caused to the applicant and the order of punishment could not be vitiated for non -supply of the enquiry report." (v) The Central Administrative Tribunal after aforesaid observations remanded the matter to the appellate authority to give adequate opportunity of being heard to this delinquent -petitioner. (vi) The appellate authority again gave adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and and passed an order confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Previously, disciplinary authority's order dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure 4) has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 22nd February, 2010 which is at Annexure 10 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. (vii) Again this petitioner has challenged the order of appellate authority in O.A. No. 199 of 2010(R) on the same tune and with the same orchestra, viz, no opportunity of being heard was given by the respondents -authorities. This old -fashioned argument has no substance at all. Looking to paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 06 of 2008 dated 8th September, 2009 (Annexure 7). This order has attained its finality. Petitioner has not further challenged this order of Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, once it has been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the petitioner had not chosen to remain present before the Enquiry Officer, there is no question of violation of principle of natural justice whatsoever arises. Again and again, such type argument are not allowed to be canvassed. (viii) Thus, even otherwise also, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. Even after this, petitioner was enlarged on bail, he was given opportunity of being heard. (ix) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Enquiry Officer's report was not given to the delinquent and it vitiates the departmental proceeding. This contention is of unwarranted and uncalled for, mainly for the reason that non -supply of Enquiry Officer's report has not caused any prejudice to this petitioner. Departmental appeal has already been preferred by him. Moreover, this point has also been argued by this petitioner in O.A. No. 06 of 2008 which was decided on 8th September, 2009 against this petitioner. Thus, there is no procedural lapse on the part of the respondents -authorities in holding that in departmental proceeding, adequate opportunity of being heard was given by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the appellate authority. (x) Now, the only question left out for this Court is to appreciate the quantum of punishment. Looking to the nature of misconduct committed by this delinquent -petitioner of presentation of false and fabricated mark -sheets of Matriculation, Intermediate Science and Bachelor of Science (Maths, Honors), reflects that there is absolutely deliberate, preplanned and well -designed action on the part of the petitioner and, that too, for getting promotion for the post of Supervisor. Again and again, such type of fabricated mark -sheets have been presented. Had there been any further promotion with minimum qualification of Master in Science, perhaps, this petitioner, with all his negative abilities, would have produced one more fabricated document of mark -sheet of Master in Science. This cannot be tolerated with Union of India/Railway Services. The punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 10.11.2005 cannot be labelled as 'shockingly disproportionate punishment', nor it can be labelled as 'unreasonably excessive punishment'. On the contrary, the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent -petitioner by the respondents -authorities is absolutely just, proper and adequate looking to the nature of misconduct. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, while dismissing the O.A. No. 199 of 2010(R) preferred by this petitioner by an order dated 19th July, 2013 and we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is dated 19th July, 2013.;