W.P.(S) No. 2134 of 2002
[ In the matter of an Application Under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India ]
....
Chandra Bhushan Ravi ..... ..... .... .... Petitioner
--Versus--
1. Food Corporation of India
2. The Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India,
Calcutta -17
3. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Hazaribagh .... .... ..... Respondents
....
For the Petitioner : Ms. Niki Sinha
For the Respondents : Mr. N. Bakshi
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY
By Court The petitioner has sought to challenge the order as
contained in Annexure -4 passed by his Disciplinary Authority on
12.9.2000
by which he has been removed from service of the Food
Corporation of India in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation
56 and Appendix-II of the Food Corporation of India (Staff)
Regulation 1971 on the basis of an Enquiry Report submitted by
the Enquiry Officer after conclusion of departmental enquiry. The
petitioner also prays for quashing of the order contained in
Annexure -6 dated 09.10.2001 i.e. the order passed by the
Appellate Authority by which the appeal filed by the petitioner
against his dismissal from service has been rejected.
The background facts are that for recruitment of
SC/ST candidates, for Category-III posts, an advertisement was
published in October, 1996 by the Food Corporation of India, and
accordingly, a written test was held on 19.1.1997. Successful
candidates were called for personal interview on different dates in
the month of March, 1997 including the petitioner and thereafter a
Merit List / Panel was prepared in which the name of the petitioner
also appeared. The petitioner was offered appointment by order
contained in Letter dated 17.4.1997 directing him to report at the
2
District Office, Food Corporation of India, Hazaribagh. The
petitioner joined his duty on 15.5.1997 on the post of Assistant
grade-III(D) in the District Office, Food Corporation of India at
Hazaribagh.
After completion of recruitment work, a Committee
was constituted by the Regional Office, Patna on 27.6.1997 to
scrutinize the Admit Cards, Attestation Forms and their
Photographs, etc with the paper of joining report of the newly
recruited employees in Food Corporation of India. The committee
checked the relevant papers and detected certain objectionable
matters against various candidates including the petitioner. Against
the petitioner, it was found that his photograph pasted on the
Admit card did not tally with the photograph furnished by him with
the Attestation form at the time of his joining in Food Corporation
of India on 15.5.1997. It was also detected that the signature of
the petitioner available on the Attendance Sheet dated 27.3.1997
prepared at the time of interview was not tallying with his signature
on his joining report and Attestation form submitted by him on
15.5.1997. On detection of such forgery, the signature of the
petitioner was again taken and was verified with the signature on
Attendance Sheet dated 27.3.1997 as well as with the signature
put by him on the joining report. The photograph of the petitioner
on the Attestation form, and the photograph available on the Admit
card of the petitioner were also verified. On verification, it was
found that the photograph affixed on Admit card of Roll
No. 11050251 dated 19.1.1997 was not tallying with the
photograph affixed on the Attestation form. Even the signature on
the Admit card in the name of the petitioner did not tally with the
signature available on the Attendance sheet. Thereafter, the
matter was referred to the Director, Government Examiner of
3
Questioned Documents, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, Kolkata for verification and report. A report was submitted by
the Government experts that the signature on the Attendance
sheet at the time of appearing for personal interview on 27.3.1997
was not tallying with the signature put by the petitioner on his
joining report submitted on 15.5.1997. The photograph on the
Attestation form, also did not tally with the photograph on the
Admit Card. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner for the charges that he after conspiracy acted
as an impostor and managed to secure service on the post of
Assistant grade-III(D) in the Food Corporation of India by adopting
corrupt practice/ unfair means at the time of personal interview on
27.3.1997.
The petitioner after notice submitted his written
statement and contested the charge in the Departmental Enquiry.
As it appears, on behalf of the Department, six
witnesses were examined and several documents were adduced in
evidence including the report of the Handwriting Expert as well as
on the Attendance sheet, Attestation Form, Joining Report, etc.
After conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry, a report was
submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary authority
holding that the charges against the petitioner was found to be
proved. After perusing the relevant papers and the Enquiry report,
the Disciplinary authority by order as contained in Annexure -4
dated 12.9.2000 passed an order for removal of the petitioner from
service.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental
appeal, which was disposed of by order dated 9.10.2001 as
contained in Annexure-6 by the Zonal Manager (East), who by a
reasoned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is,
4
these two orders, contained in Annexure-4 and Annexure-6, which
are being challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Ms. Niki
Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the charge against the petitioner was that he arranged another
person to appear in the interview on 27.3.1997 in his place and he
signed on the Attendance sheet at the time of Oral interview, but
this fact was not established by providing any evidence in the
departmental proceeding. She further submitted that the person
who prepared the Attendance sheet, and the person who obtained
the signature of the petitioner were not examined by the
Department, and therefore, it cannot be said that the charges were
established against the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the
punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the
charges against the petitioner.
On the other hand, Mr. N. Bakshi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Corporation, submitted that the
standard of proof in a Domestic or Departmental Enquiry is quite
different from the standards of proof in any criminal trial. The
Domestic / Departmental enquiry, held on the basis of
preponderance of probability, whereas in the criminal trial, the
charge is to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. He also
submitted that the provision of Evidence Act is not applicable so far
as the Departmental proceeding is concerned, and therefore, the
strict proof of the charge as required in a criminal trial is not
required in a Departmental proceeding. He further submitted that
by sufficient oral and documentary evidence, the charge against
the petitioner was found to be established, and therefore, after
considering the gravity of the misconduct committed by the
petitioner, he was removed from the service. For such grave
5
misconduct, the appropriate punishment is removal from service,
therefore it cannot be said to be excessive.
From perusal of the Enquiry Report which has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that the Oral
as well as Documentary evidence have been discussed therein in
detail. It further appears from the said report that the Deputy
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Central Forensic
Institute, Government of India, Kolkata, submitted his report, which
was exhibited during the enquiry, whereas he reported that the
signature put on the Attestation Sheet prepared at the time of
interview was not tallying with the signature put on the papers
submitted at the time of joining of the service by the petitioner.
On consideration of the evidence, it was found by the Enquiry
Officer, that the petitioner arranged another person to appear in
the interview on 27.3.1997 in place of himself who had signed in
the Attendance sheet at the time of Oral interview. Government
Examiner also deposed during the enquiry.
It is on the basis of overwhelming evidence on the
record the enquiry officer held that the charges stood established.
I find from the impugned order of the Appellate court
that after application of mind, and on consideration of the relevant
materials on record, he has concurred that the findings arrieved at
by the Disciplinary Authority relying on the Enquiry report. It is
settled law that if in any departmental proceeding / domestic
enquiry, on the basis of the evidence on record, findings on fact is
arrieved at, then this Court should not substitute its own findings,
in exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, and the findings on facts cannot be
disturbed by reappraisal of the entire evidence afresh, unless it is
shown that the findings on facts arrieved at are perverse in nature
6
or are against the materials on record. Reference in this regard is
made in the case of Syed Yakoob Versus K. S. Radhakrishnan
& Others, reported in (A.I.R. 1964 SC 477) and which has been
relied and reiterated in a subsequent recent decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. Versus
G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in [(2005) 3 SCC 241].
In view of the discussions and findings as above, I do
not find force in the submission advanced by the petitioner. I do
not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The
punishment of removal from service also cannot be said to be
disproportionate to the charge in view of its gravity. Such employee
who indulges in such an activity as has been found to be done in
the present case, does not require sympathetic consideration.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the
same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 03rd of September, 2009
N.A.F.R./S.I.
