AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short common question which arises for consideration and determination in all these 25 original applications is whether the order by which the respondent Income-Tax department has terminated the services of each one of the applicants on the ground that they, secured appointment on the basis of forged nomination letters purported to have been issued by the Staff Selection Commission, (for short Commission) is liable to be interfered with and quashed by this Tribunal primarily on the basis that the offending order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and that there was no foundation to conclude that the nomination letters were forged, fictitious, fake and bogus.

(2.) The above controversy has fallen for our consideration in the back-drop of the facts that at the instance of the Income-tax department, posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Divisions clerks, Stenographer Gr. D. and Inspectors were advertised by the Commission. After receipt of the applications, written test and type test were conducted in two spells in the year 1988 and 1990. On the basis of the nomination letter which was proof of the fact that the concerned applicant has been finally selected for appointment, each one of the applicants was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years and after under-going departmental examination and successful completion of the period of probation, they were confirmed on the post on which they were appointed. It appears that a complaint was made that the nomination letters on the basis of which the applicants were appointed were forged and fake and, therefore, the appointment of the applicants on the different posts was vitiated as being void ab-initio. The respondent department referred the matter to the Commission and after ascertaining that prima-facie the nomination letters were forged ones, it was thought proper to initiate departmental enquiry against the applicants. Each one of them was served with a memorandum of charge memo except Baljinder Singh, Kamaljit Singh and Ripan Kumar who are the applicants respectively in O.A. Nos. 1255/PB/2001, 262/PB/2001 and 1266/PB/ 2001. Rest of the applicant submitted a reply the charge memo. The departmental enquiry, it appears, was not pursued by the department and ultimately after taking the legal advice, the services of all the applicants were terminated in August, 2001. As an exemplar, the termination order Annexure P-9 in respect of Avtar Singh, applicant in O.A. No. 853/PB/2001 may be quoted for ready reference and better understanding of the controversy which is to be dealt with heretoafter:--

(3.) THE respondent No. 4 Staff Selection Commission has filed a separate written statement in each one of the cases. THE stand taken by the Commission is that the names of the applicants did not figure in the final result for the concerned post and that they have obtained employment on the basis of forged, fake and fabricated nomination letters which fact was determined after due enquiry based on records. THE applicants have filed rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents.