Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus C.A.T., ALLAHABAD & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India & Others v. C.A.T., Allahabad & Another - WRIT - A No. 36645 of 2000 [2000] RD-AH 6 (28 March 2000)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36645  of 2000

Union of India and others

Vs.

Central Administrative Tribunal  and others

Hon.R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 3.5.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No.118 of 1993 (Revati Prasad Morya Vs. Brigadier/ Commandant 509 Army Base Workshop and others). It has further been prayed that the petitioners may be allowed to proceed further with the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent employee. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The respondent no.2 was appointed as Instrumental Mechanic ( Opt) on 15.6.1988 in 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra Cantt. Agra. His High school examination certificate bearing Roll No.000619 of 19081 was sent for verification to the Madhymik Shiksha Parishad , U.P. Allahabad  which by its letter dated 24.12.1990 intimated that the said certificate was fake and forged. It was informed that respondent no.2 had failed in the High school examination of 1981 having obtained only 146 marks out of 500. Based upon the aforesaid letter of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad

-2-

the respondent no.2 was placed under suspension by the order dated 28.1.1991and a preliminary enquiry was ordered to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the respondent no.2. Preliminary Enquiry Officer submitted his final report to the disciplinary authority whereupon a charge sheet dated 21.6.1991 was issued to the respondent no.2 under Rule 14 of CCS( CC& A) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority again referred the matter to the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad for obtaining duplicate marks sheet which was issued by the Parishad on 9.10.1991 indicating that the petitioner had actually failed in the High school examination.

The respondent no.2 then filed a Writ Petition No.21529 of 1992 before the High Court wherein an interim order dated 13.6..1992 was passed staying the operation of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad's letter dated 24.12.1990 and also stayed further proceedings which were initiated on the basis of duplicate marks sheet issued on 9.10.1991. However, the disciplinary authority continued with the enquiry proceeding. Since the petitioners were not made party in the said writ petition, the aforesaid writ petition came tobe finally decided by this court by order dated 8.11.1995.  The writ petition was allowed. The letter dated 24.12.1990

-3-

issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad as also the duplicate marks sheet issued on 9.10.1991 were quashed. Against the aforesaid order the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad preferred a Special Appeal No.394 of 1996 before a Division Bench of this court which was dismissed by the order dated 29.10.2001. Consequently the issue with respect to the High school certificate and marks sheet of the respondent no.2 attained finality.

The respondent no.2 then filed another Writ Petition No.45773 of 1992 challenging the suspension order but   subsequently, he got the writ petition dismissed as not pressed and filed OA No.188 of 1993 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad seeking the relief of quashing the charge sheet dated 2.6.1991 and revocation of suspension order dated 28.1.1991. The Central Administrative Tribunal has by the impugned order allowed OA No.118 of 1993 and quashed the suspension order as also the charge sheet.

The main grounds taken in the writ petition for assailing the orders of the  Tribunal are that the Tribunal has based its finding on the orders dated 8.11.1995 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.21529 of 1992 although the same was under challenge in Special Appeal No.394 of 1996, that when the Writ Petition No. 45773 of 1992 filed by respondent

-4-

no.2 was pending then the proceedings before the Tribunal could not be maintained, that during the enquiry proceeding the respondent no.2 could not produce any evidence in his defence to prove the validity of his High school certificate and marks sheet.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 the order passed by this court in Special Appeal has been annexed as Annexure CA-2 which indicates that Special Appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 8.11.95 passed in Writ Petition No.21529 of 1992 has been confirmed. The Writ Petition No.45773 of 1992 has also been got dismissed by the petitioners as not pressed.  Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the letter of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad has been quashed  by the High Court and the said proceeding has become final. It is admitted that the cause of action for initiating the disciplinary proceeding and suspension of respondent no.2 was the letter of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad dated 24.12.1990 and duplicate marks sheet issued on 9.10.1991. The said letter and duplicate marks sheet having been quashed by the High Court, the cause of action for passing the order of suspension and initiating the disciplinary proceeding does not survive. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the

-5-

matter and has quashed the charge sheet and suspension order. No error or illegality could be pointed out before this court in the impugned order of the Tribunal. This court finds that when the order for initiating the disciplinary proceeding and passing of suspension order having been set aside the disciplinary proceeding can not continue. No further ground has been made out.

This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.

28.3.2006

Gc.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.