JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. These are four writ petitions filed by four Delhi Transport Corporation (in short `DTC’) conductors who were appointed as Assistant Store Keepers (in short `ASKs’) with DTC and were subsequently reverted to the posts of Conductor. The respondent corporation by its circular dated 28.2.2005 invited applications from Conductors for the posts of ASKs. One of the eligibility conditions for the post was two years experience of store keeping. These appointments, it was made clear in the advertisement, were to be treated as fresh appointments except that for the purpose of pension the past service was to be counted. After receiving applications and conducting interviews the respondent released a list of selected candidates vide a circular dated 6.6.2005. 61 selected candidates were issued letters of appointment and were redesignated as ASKs with effect from 7.6.2005. The four petitioners were included in the list of 61 selected candidates and they also joined the posts of ASK. In the third week of September, 2005 the respondent issued letters canceling the orders of appointment for these newly appointed ASKs. These orders of cancellation of appointments of the ASKs were challenged in writ petitions bearing numbers WP(C) Nos. 19076-80/05 which were disposed of vide a judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2005. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in those writ petitions it was disclosed that after the appointment letters were issued the DTC Employees Congress complained to the Chairman & Managing Director of DTC that the appointees did not have the requisite experience of stores and had never worked in that capacity and that the Depot Managers of the respondent had wrongly certified the working experience of such Conductors. The investigation that followed found that 10 conductors appointed as ASKs had given experience certificate from private orgnizations for the periods which overlapped with their period of study which led to a suspicion. Thereafter a Committee of three officers was constituted for the purpose on 22.7.2005. The Committee scrutinized the certificates and furnished its report on 28.7.2005 and thereafter submitted a case study report on 13.9.2005. The Committee pointed out instances where the certifying agencies, namely, the previous employers of Conductors had in certain cases endorsed the certificates but mentioned that the certificates had been issued recently at the asking of the concerned candidate although the certificates were made to look as if they were issued earlier. On the basis of such material the respondent decided to withdraw or cancel the appointments. It was also disclosed that in 19 instances physical verification yielded that in four cases the certificates were false, in two cases the information was genuine and in other cases proper verification could not be carried out since the firm or concern no longer existed. Accordingly on 22.9.2005 the respondent issued the order reverting all the 61 ASKs appointed vide orders dated 6.6.2005 and all the ASKs were directed to report for further duties as Conductors. That batch of writ petitions was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2005 whereby the order of cancellation of appointments of ASKs was set aside and it was held that the ASKs would continue with full benefits as if the order of reversion had not been issued. The order dated 30.11.2005, however, left the respondent with liberty to initiate such proceedings as it may deem appropriate including departmental proceedings to enquire into the allegations against the petitioners. Following this order the respondent issued order dated 9.1.2006 deploying all the 61 Conductors as ASKs with a rider that their deployment would be subject to final outcome of the investigations and action taken thereafter. The respondent thereafter proceeded to issue notice to each individual employee affected by above proceedings to show cause as to why their appointment as ASKs should not be cancelled. The concerned ASKs then submitted their replies and thereafter the impugned order of cancellation of appointment/ reversion to the original posts of Conductor was passed. The individual cases can now be examined.
WP (Civil) No. 10292/2006
4. The notice dated 15.5.2006 issued to Sumer Singh, the petitioner in WP(C) 10292/06, points out the following irregularities found by the vigilance department during investigation into the matter mentioned above,
1. Did not mention anything related to experience certificate in form No. 17 at the time of their appointment.
2. Misrepresented the facts of record of working experience submitted with his application form in the Firm’s name which does not exists (sic) during the period of issuance of said experience certificate on 3.3.1981, as verified by a team of PLD, Hq.
5. The experience certificate filed by Shri Sumer Singh was issued by an organization Sakshi Automobiles. The certificate is reproduced below:
SAKSHI AUTOMOBILES
Government Suppliers
Stockist for Piston Ring Goetze/Usha& Brake
Lining Rane/TVS & All Type of Bearings
* * *
52, Gurunanak Auto Mkt., Kashmere Gate
Delhi – 110 006 Phone 2517341, 2513605
Date : 03.03.81
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to Certify Mr. Sumer Singh, S/o Ravi Chand his working Store-Keeper in our Stores for the period of 02.02.1979 to 31.01.1981.
for SAKSHI AUTOMOBILES
Sd/-
Prop.
6. This concern appears to have given a similar certificate to another Conductor, namely, Suubash Chand. When approached by the team of vigilance, M/s. Sakshi Automobiles gave the following endorsement:
In regard to the above certificate it is submitted that the during the certificate period M/s Sakshi Automobiles was not exists (sic) and not functioning since last 3 years.
For SAKSHI AUTOMOBILES
Sd/-
Executive
There is also a further note which reads as under:
NOTE
In continuation to above said views it is stated that during the certificate period Mr. Subhash Chand S/o Mr. Sh. Vikram Singh (Jan 82 to Dec 84) and Mr. Sumer Singh s/o Sh. Ravi Chand (Feb 79 to Jan 81) had worked in our stores in our concern M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries (AMIT AUTO TRADERS & IND.) Due to non-availability of the Letter Head Certificate was issues in M/s. Sakshi Automobiles.
For Sakshi Automobiles
Sd/-
7. Thus, it was clear that the management of M/s. Sakshi Automobiles admitted that the petitioner Sumer Singh never worked with M/s. Sakshi Automobiles. It was further clarified that M/s. Sakshi Automobiles did not at all exist at the relevant time, i.e., February, 1979 to January, 1981. The averment that he had worked with M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries is not of any value because there is no certificate from M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. The non-availability of letterhead of M/s.Amit Auto Traders & Industries certainly cannot be an excuse for giving the certificate in the letterhead of M/s. Sakshi Automobiles which did not at all exist in 1981 and further stating therein that he had worked in M/s. Sakshi Automobiles. Further the certificate is dated 3.3.1981. This was an act of forgery. It was thus a deliberate act of manufacturing a document at a later date with a fake date and a fake name of a non-existent business concern. The petitioner-Sumer Singh was issued the notice to show cause. The relevant part of the notice dated 15.5.2006 is as under:
1. …
2. Misrepresented the facts of record of working experience submitted with his application form in the Firm’s name which does not exists during the period of issuance of said experience certificate on 3.3.1981, as verified by a team of PLD, Hq.
Now therefore an opportunity is being provided to you to show cause as to why your selection and appointment to the post of Asstt. Store Keeper be not cancelled and why you should not be reverted to the post of Conductor. In case you want to make representation against this show cause notice, the same should reach the undersigned within seven days from the date of issue of this notice. In case no representation or reply is received within aforesaid time, action will be taken against you accordingly.
8. The petitioner-Sumer Singh filed a reply to the notice to show case. The absence of the mention of any experience in store keeping was explained by saying that the experience of store keeping had no relevance to the appointment to the post of Conductor and, therefore, this experience was not mentioned while filling up Form No. 17 at the initial stage of appointment. It is denied that any information was withheld from the management. Coming to the genuineness of the certificate issued by M/s. Sakshi Automobiles the petitioner had the following to say:
10. In regard to charge (b) it is submitted that the management has not been able to find any fault with the experience certificate submitted by me and are now making frivolous allegations, which have no relevance to appointment to the post of ASK. No charge can be made out against me when the certificate of store keeping submitted by me has been found satisfactory. Besides my progress report has been found to be satisfactory by the competent authority and till date no adverse orders have ever been communicated to me. That during the court proceedings in the written statement I had filed the copy of the certificate issued by the company subsequently verifying my earlier certificate which reveals that the firm existed at the time when I worked with the company. However when the management of DTC approached the firm because of non availability of the letter head the certificates were issued in the name of M/s Sakshi Automobiles. This clearly indicates that the certificate furnished was true and correct. However the management failed to consider this document which was also filed before the Hon’ble Court. The vigilance department has also been shown the certificate duly verified by the company again and a photo copy of the same has also been submitted. However, without considering the same I have been again charged with same irregularity without application of mind which is wrong and the charge is liable to be quashed. There is no misrepresentation on my part and the certificate clearly shows that the firm existed at the time of which I have submitted the experience certificate. This fact has been totally ignored by the management and the charge fails .
9. It is also contended in the reply to show cause notice that copies of rules under which show cause notice was issued have not been given to the petitioner Sumer Singh and that petitioner Sumer Singh had a clean service record, that no charge sheet had been given nor any departmental enquiry was conducted and that the respondent had created a shortcut skipping appropriate procedure. The petitioner replied that allegations in the show cause notice were baseless and vague. After this reply the respondent came out with the order dated 2.6.2006. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
… The investigation report together with the reply to the show-cause notice consequently submitted by Shri Sumer Singh has been considered by the undersigned. The reply to the show-cause notice has not been found satisfactory. As such, as per the provision of Memo No. PLD-II/ASK/05/1636 dated 6.6.2005 Shri Sumer Singh ASK, P.T. No. 36220 is hereby reverted to the post of Conductor immediately.
10. This order is challenged in this writ petition. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, took the following pleas:
a) there was non-application of mind by the management while passing the impugned order which is depicted by the cyclostyled form in which the order is written.
b) the petitioner was entitled to have the copy of the vigilance report and without the same the vigilance enquiry report should not have been taken into account.
c) since the author of the experience certificate himself has stated that the petitioner had worked in M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries the document could not have been disbelieved and the respondent should have held that the petitioner had worked in M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries, which is a sister concern of M/s. Sakshi Automobiles.
d) the respondent has not been able to procure any evidence against the petitioner.
11. The respondent has refuted all the pleas and has contended in the counter affidavit that the order dated 2.6.2006 is a legal and valid order.
12. So far as order dated 2.6.2006 is concerned, the same appears to have been written in a computer generated paper in which name of Sumer Singh has been written by a typewriter. This itself is not sufficient to show that the order has been passed without application of mind. As mentioned above, a thorough procedure was adopted before the respondent reached the stage of passing of the order dated 2.6.2006. The order says in so many words that investigation report along with reply has been considered and that the reply has been found unsatisfactory. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted on that ground.
13. The petitioner’s counsel says that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has cited the judgments in the cases of Jagmel Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2005 (1) SLR 491 and MMRDA Officers Association v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Anr. 2005 (4) SLR 177. However, on facts the present case is not a case of non-speaking order. The facts are very clear from the proceedings narrated above. The impugned order has sufficiently disclosed why the same was passed. It is not a non-speaking order. The rulings cited are not at all relevant to the present case.
14. Coming to the second objection about the non-availability of the vigilance report, all that is necessary to be said is that the objection of the vigilance has been made sufficiently clear in the notice to show cause as quoted above. There was no need to disclose anything more as the petitioner was required to meet only that part of the objection of the vigilance department. The petitioner was fully aware of the endorsement made by the management of M/s. Sakshi Automobiles and also by M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. Therefore, the second objection of the petitioner is also not valid in facts. The petitioner’s counsel has referred to the judgments in the cases of K.C. Rahi v. Board of Directors and Anr. 2005 (3) SLR 554, Sri Brindaban Patra v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. 2005 (3) SLR 720, Gurdip Singh, District Attorney v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2005 (3) SLR 759, Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab 2005 (2) SLR 255, Ram Ratan Tiwary v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2005(4) SLR 415 and Dashrathi Nayak v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench and Ors. 2004 (2) SLR 376 to support his argument that non-supply of the enquiry report is violative of the principles of natural justice. All the above rulings were on the point of supply of enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings in the present case were not disciplinary proceedings. They were only proceedings to discover if the appointment of petitioner to the post of ASK had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and if the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was genuine. The petitioner-Sumer Singh does not deny that he got the appointment on the basis of the experience certificate mentioned above and that the firm certifying also made the aforesaid endorsement on it. The petitioner knew all the facts on the basis of which the notice to show cause had been issued. There is no denial that the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself so far as the facts are concerned and impugned order was passed only after taking the explanation into consideration. There was no violation of the principle of natural justice. The citations of the petitioner are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case.
15. So far as the third objection is concerned, the respondent has to be allowed its own discretion to accept or reject the explanation given for the certificate issued on the letterhead of M/s. Sakshi automobiles. The experience certificate is clear and categorical saying that the petitioner had worked with M/s. Sakshi automobiles. This falls to the ground immediately when it is stated in the endorsement that M/s. Sakshi Automobiles did not at all exist at the relevant period. After the vigilance found out that the certificate was false an effort to salvage was made by the petitioner by obtaining yet another endorsement that he had worked with M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. The petitioner did not himself offer to say that the experience certificate be treated to have been issued by M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. He did not offer any explanation why the experience certificate could not have been given on behalf of M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. If the respondent has rejected the reply to the notice to show cause the decision cannot be said to be perverse and this Court cannot force the respondent to accept the same.
16. Now let me see the fourth objection. It is not possible to understand how after so much evidence against the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner still has the grouse that the respondent had no evidence against the petitioner. The reliance on the judgment in the case of P. Sokha v. The State of Mizoram and Ors. 2003 (6) SLR 527 is entirely misplaced.
17. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narinder Mohan Arya (2006) 4 SCC 731, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the nature of departmental enquiry are quasi criminal. He proceeds to propound that since the proceedings are quasi criminal proof beyond doubt is necessary before taking any action. This theory of the petitioner is altogether unacceptable. Further the petitioner’s counsel is labouring under a misconception that the petitioner has been dismissed after a departmental enquiry into any misconduct. The case is entirely distinct. It is a case of cancellation of appointment obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
18. The firm which issued the certificate has itself endorsed that the certificate is false inasmuch as the firm did not even exist at the relevant time. It pains to see that the petitioner instead of being apologetic is doggedly pursuing the case to this extent claiming to defend the appointment on the basis of the same certificate of experience. It also pains to see how arguments have been advanced relying upon authorities which do not even remotely apply to the facts of the case. The equity is entirely against the petitioner. Such an attempt must be severely discouraged. The writ petition of Sumer Singh is entirely frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court. The writ petition WP(C) 10292/2006 deserves to be dismissed.
WP (Civil) No. 10414/2006
19. So far as the other three writ petitions are concerned, the history being the same it will suffice to see the experience certificate which is in question. In the case of Sharvan Kumar petitioner in WP(C) 10414/2006], the certificate of experience was issued by M/s. Mohan Trading Corporation. The certificate is in the following language:
MOHAN TRADING CORPORATION
——————————————————————————-
Distributors & Stockists of:
ZEUS, SEEC, H.I.C., PRADEEP PLASTIC, NEROLAC RUBBERS, AUTO FEED, DOLA MONOGRAMS
EEJAY, PECCO, T.T. ELECTRA, AURO and Ors. O.E. TATA SPARES
——————————————————————————-
213, Guru Nanak Auto Market,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006
Dated: 20 Jan. 1978
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Certified that Sh. Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Sukh Dayal resident of H. No. 330, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi-17. Worked with us from Jan. 1974 To Dec. 1977 as a
Store Keeper.
During this time we found his service satisfactory and his moral character is good.
Sd/-
20. The endorsement made on the demand of the vigilance department was as under:
Today on 4/10/05, a team from DTC Vigilance Dept. came to my shop and enquired about this certificate of work experience shown in favor of Swaran Kumar, S/o Sukh Dayal res. of 330, Chirag Delhi. In this regard I being the owner of this concern namely Mohan Trading Corporation, 213, GURU NANAK Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-6 state that it is a bogus paper and not issued by me and signature is not the genuine the stamp is not of my firm. This letter pad is also forged letter head with Red Block Format/Print. This firm is established in Delhi from 1993.
Sd/-
21. As such this certificate is said to be totally forged and bogus. This is a case worse than that of Sumer Singh inasmuch as the concern/firm has even denied the signature as well as the stamp of the firm. Even the letterhead is said to be forged. Sharvan Kumar was served with the notice to show cause. The relevant part of which is as under:
1. …
2. The existing owner of the firm/shop denied for issuance of said experience certificate in the name of person concern as he has established his shop in Delhi in the year 1993. A certificate to this effect was given during verification. However, the affidavit submitted later-on by Shri Lal Singh during recent enquiry has no reference of proof of firm/shop concern showing the existence on 20.1.1978.
Now therefore an opportunity is being provided to you to show cause as to why your selection and appointment to the post of Asstt. Store Keeper be not cancelled and why you should not be reverted to the post of Conductor. In case you want to make representation against this show cause notice, the same should reach the undersigned within seven days from the date of issue of this notice. In case no representation or reply is received within aforesaid time, action will be taken against you accordingly.
22. Subsequently another affidavit was obtained by the petitioner Sharvan Kumar from one Ashok Kumar s/o late Shri Remal Das saying that the deponent was the grand son of Shri Balia Ram and that in the years 1979-80 whenever he visited the shop of his grand father he used to find Sharvan Kumar in the shop. This affidavit in no way saves the experience certificate from being bogus.
23. The petitioner Sharvan Kumar gave a reply to the notice to show cause. Various legal objections to the procedure adopted by the respondents were raised in the reply. The relevant part of the reply dealing with the certificate of experience is as under:
9. With regard to the second allegation it is submitted that the (sic) after once holding the certificates to be correct management is now making frivolous allegations which have no relevance to appointment to the post of ASK. No charge can be made out against me when the certificate of store keeping submitted by me was found to be satisfactory earlier. Besides my progress report has been found to be satisfactory by the competent authority and till date no adverse orders have ever been communicated to me. it is submitted that the management has got the experience certificate verified from a wrong firm (Mohan Trading) instead of M/s. Mohan Trading Corporation which is evident from the rubber stamp affixed of Mohan Trading by Sh. Man Mohan on the verification conducted by the Vigilance Department. This fact is also supported by the statement of Sh. Man Mohan Singh who said that he has started the business in 1993 whereas the firm M/s Mohan Trading Corporation was owned by one Sh. Valia Ram who was a resident of Rohtak. I had worked with M/s Mohan Trading Corporation from Jan 1974 to December 1977. The grandson of Sh. Valia Ram verified that I had worked with M/s Mohan Trading Corporation which was established prior to 1970 and the said shop of M/s Mohan Trading Corporation was vacated and closed in the year 1979-80 by way of an affidavit which I am annexing with this reply. The Vigilance Department malafidely tried to get wrong information and misrepresented by doing the verification of my certificate from a wrong firm with somewhat similar name just to create false evidence against me. Sh. Man Mohan Singh was never the owner of the firm M/s Mohan Trading Corporation and his verification therefore is immaterial. Simply because the shop/firm which earlier existed did not exist any more does not mean that experience certificate then taken become false. It is common knowledge that people keep buying and selling shops and it is not in the hands of the employees to stop the employer from selling his shop at any point of time. It is further submitted that the mention of one Sh. Lal Singh and some affidavit submitted by him does not inspire confidence as no such person was either the owner of M/s Mohan Trading Corporation nor an employee of the same as per my knowledge. No copy of the affidavit submitted by Sh. Lal Singh has been given to me to verify. It is pertinent to mention here that I have also worked with the DTC in its Store Department for 5 years and the same was submitted before the Hon’ble Court. I am annexing a copy of the same again for your kind perusal. It is wrong to suggest misrepresentation since both the certificates i.e. the certificate issued by the firm as well as by DTC as issued have been placed before the department and vigilance department. This clearly indicates that the certificates furnished were true and correct however the management failed to consider the same. And without considering the same, I have been issued the show cause with same irregularity without application of mind, which is wrong and is liable to be set aside. There is no misrepresentation on my part and this fact has been totally ignored by the management.
24. It is clear from the reply that the petitioner could not explain away the endorsement on the certificate made by the owner of the concern, namely, M/s. Mohan Trading Corporation, which had issued the certificate. As held in the case of Sharvan Kumar (WP(C) 10292/2006) it was for the respondent to accept or reject the explanation. In view of the facts mentioned above, the view taken by the respondent cannot be said to have been perverse. The owner of the concern endorsed that the certificate was bogus. It is not understood how the petitioner Sharvan Kumar could still harp upon the same certificate and claim that no case of having filed a false affidavit was made out against him. This Court cannot interfere with the view taken by the respondent.
25. All the grounds and arguments taken in the case of petitioner-Sumar Singh have been borrowed by Mr. N.S. Dalal for the petitioner-Sharvan Kumar. Therefore, it is not necessary to re-state the arguments/grounds and the opinion of this Court on them.
26. It may be added further that the petitioner Sharvan Kumar is now also relying upon the certificate of experience obtained by him from the Depot Manager of Kalkaji Depot of the respondent saying that Sharvan Kumar had been working in the Work Shop Office on P.O.L seat, Store Duty Collection Material from CWS-I & CWS-II and that he also worked as Computer Operator for preparing the statement of all traffic store at depot level for more than five years. This certificate was not produced at the time the petitioner sought the appointment of ASK. The petitioner did not seek his appointment on the basis of this certificate. Nor was the respondent concerned with the genuineness of this certificate when the enquiry about the genuineness of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was being investigated. This Court cannot return a finding that the petitioner Sharvan Kumar possesses the relevant experience and fulfillls the criterion. This writ petition is filed only in order to challenge the impugned order of reversion. As mentioned earlier the facts leading to reversion was the discovery of the fakeness of the certificate. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to explain and thus rules of natural justice were followed. Accordingly this writ petition also deserve to fail.
WP (Civil) No. 10317/2006
27. Coming to the case of petitioner Prem Sagar the experience certificate produced reads as under:
Phone: 3277286
N E O C O M P U T E R S
THE COMPUTER HOUSE
(DEALS IN HARDWARE & SOFTWARE)
F-1/16, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002
Ref. No. NEO/1982/136 Dated:27-10-1982
To WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
It is certify that Prem Sagar S/o Sh. Lachman Das had worked as Store Assistant w.e.f. July 1980 to August 1982 for maintaining the up to date inventory for Computer Hardware, Accessories and Software. He has an excellent skill for keeping the inventory and have got enough experience to handle the store department.
I wish him every success in his carrier (sic).
Sd/-
Manager Director
28. The petitioner was given a show cause notice as was given to the previous two petitioners. The relevant part of the show cause notice is as under:
1. …
2. The letter had bearing telephone No. 277286 that comes into effect after 1985 of 7 digits numbers shows record of misrepresentated experience certificate certified in the year 1982.
Now therefore an opportunity is being provided to you to show cause as to why your selection and appointment to the post of Asstt. Store Keeper be not cancelled and why you should not be reverted to the post of Conductor. In case you want to make representation against this show cause notice, the same should reach the undersigned within seven days from the date of issue of this notice. In case no representation or reply is received within aforesaid time, action will be taken against you accordingly.
29. On this the petitioner gave the following response:
Keeping in view the position explained above, it is further submitted that the undersigned had worked in a Private Firm w.e.f. July 1980 to August 1982 and joined DTC in the month of November, 1982. However, since for the post of Conductor the requisite experience was not required at all and as such no experience certificate had been taken at that time. However, the experience certificate was taken from the Private Firm lateron (sic) after 1985 and at that time Telephone No. 3277286 had been changed. it is again reiterated that the requisite experience was not required for the post of Conductor and as such neither it was mentioned in Form No. 17 nor the requisite experience certificate was obtained from the said Company prior to 1985. However, the experience certificate was taken lateron (sic) as I intend to carrier prospects in DTC as well as outside.
30. It is clear that the petitioner Prem Sagar had absolutely no explanation to offer. He himself admitted that the experience certificate was obtained after 1985 when the 7-digit numbers had come into effect. This also fortifies and confirms the allegation that the experience certificate was fake. Mr. A.U. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Prem Sagar, is relying entirely on the submissions made by Mr. N.S. Dalal, appearing for other two writ petitioners. There is no reason why this should meet a different fate. Hence, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed.
WP (Civil) No. 10316/2006
31. The petitioner Lakhi Ram submitted an experience certificate which is as under:
Offi. PP 2510410
Hellow Res. PP 2522346
Shyam Lal Engineering Works
Specialists in:
Punch, Blocks, Hydraulic Compressor Machine, Hydraulic Cutter Hydraulic Press, Hydraulic Jack and all types of Shaping and Lathe works Ref. No. SLEW/235/82 Dated : 6-10-1982 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that Mr. Lakhi Ram s/o Sh. Parbhati Ram has been working in our concern as a StorE KEEPER dated from 2-9-1979 To 6-10-1982 and drawing a salary of Rs. 1100/- Per Month. He is a good and hard worker. He bears a good moral character.
For SHYAM LAL ENGINEERING WORKS
Sd/-
Prop.
32. The petitioner Lakhi Ram was served with the notice to show cause. The relevant portion of the notice to show cause is as under:
1. …
2. The letter head bearing Tel. Nos. 2510410 & 2522346 that comes into effect after 1985 being 7 digits numbers shows record of misrepresented experience certificate certified in the year 1982 and has no impression of owners stamp.
Now therefore an opportunity is being provided to you to show cause as to why your selection and appointment to the post of Asstt. Store Keeper be not cancelled and why you should not be reverted to the post of Conductor. In case you want to make representation against this show cause notice, the same should reach the undersigned within seven days from the date of issue of this notice. In case no representation or reply is received within aforesaid time, action will be taken against you accordingly.
33. The petitioner Lakhi Ram submitted an explanation. The portion of the explanation dealing with the experience certificate is as under:
10. In regard to charge (b) it is submitted that the management has not been able to find any fault with the experience certificate submitted by me earlier and are now making frivolous allegations, which have no relevance to appointment to the post of ASK. No charge can be made out against me when the certificate of store keeping submitted by me was found to be satisfactory earlier. Besides my progress report has been found to be satisfactory by the competent authority and till date no adverse orders have ever been communicated to me. It is submitted that the certificate issued by M/S Shyam Lal Engineering Works is true and correct and the same has been again certified by the proprietor Sh. Yogesh Kumar on 25.10.2005 who was the issuing authority of the original certificate of experience. It is wrong to suggest misrepresentation since the certificate as issued has been placed before the department and vigilance department. This clearly indicates that the certificate furnished was true and correct however the management failed to consider this document after re-verification. The Vigilance Department has also been shown the certificate and a photocopy of the same was also submitted. However without considering the same I have been again charged with same irregularity without application of mind which is wrong and is liable to be set aside. There is no misrepresentation on my part and this fact has been totally ignored by the management.
34. The explanation does not at all satisfy the query. There is no explanation how the 7-digit telephone number which came into existence only in 1985 could appear in the experience certificate purportedly issued in 1982. Merely by harping upon the plea that the certificate was genuine is of no avail whatsoever. The certificate was again placed before the firm which issued the certificate. The certificate issued was reiterated in the following language:
It is again certified that Sh. Lakhi Ram, S/o Sh. Parbhati Ram had worked in this workshop WEF 2-9-1979 to 6-10-1982 as a Assistant Store Keeper.
This Experience Certificate was issued 6-10-1982.
Shayam Lal Engineering Works
T-55, Gali Robin Cinema Wali
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007
Sd/-
25/X/2005
35. It is clear that the experience certificate is a collusive document. Even the endorsement has not addressed the anomaly that the two telephone numbers could not have been present in 1982. The person who has reiterated the experience certificate also reiterates that the certificate was issued in 1982. The respondent cannot be faulted if the respondent found that the certificate was not genuine and that the appointment granted on the basis of this certificate only deserved to be recalled. The impugned order cannot be interfered with. It may be added here that the arguments advanced by Mr. A.U.Khan, Advocate, for this petitioner-Lakhi Ram are no different than the arguments advanced by Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate, for his own clients. Therefore, this writ petition also has to be dismissed.
36. The respondent instead of seeking disciplinary action for major penalty has only reverted the petitioners to their original post of Conductor which is equivalent to that of the ASK. Yet the petitioners have chosen to challenge the orders of reversion. The writ petitions are entirely frivolous, as stated above in para No. 18 of this judgment. The attempt to pursue a claim based on document, whose falsity stood fully exposed, need to be severely discouraged. The courts are always reluctant to impose cost on a workman in his litigation against the employer. But the present case is clearly a case of abuse of judicial process. Hence, each of four writ petitions is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 12,000/-.