it2025_00907 — When the IO goes beyond the scope of his jurisdiction in conducting the inquiry, the entire proceedings get vitiated and the penalty order and order of appellate authority confirming the penalty order are liable to be set aside

When the IO goes beyond the scope of his jurisdiction in conducting the inquiry, the entire proceedings get vitiated and the penalty order and order of appellate authority confirming the penalty order are liable to be set aside — This chunk pertains to an original application (O.A.) No. 043/000234 of 2017 challenging the penalty order issued against a Mali employee in ICAR who was accused of submitting false HSLC pass certifi... — Facts: The Applicant having entered the service as Mali in ICAR in 1982, attained the position of Grade Technical-5 and on completion of 30 years of service he was asked to submit all the original certificates which according to the Applicant, he submitted. However, he was kept under suspension, by an Order, dated 22-9-2012 and as the suspension, continued for a substantial period, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 347 of 2012 and the Tribunal quashed the order of suspension by Order, dated 26-2-2013 with a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant. Non-compliance of this order forced the Applicant to file C.P. No. 22 of 2013 whereafter only he was reinstated and again the Applicant was served with a Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 alleging that he showed negligence and irresponsibility by submitting false HSLC pass certificate at the time of his selection as Technical-1. Inquiry ensued and the Respondents in the inquiry referred to two Letters, dated 14-10-2011 and 1-9-2012 from the Controller of Examination and Dy. Secretary of Board of Secondary Education had not been proved by the authors. That the two documents as stated above did not stand proved in view of absence of the author of the said letters as prosecution witness was submitted by the Applicant. The Inquiry Officer, however, based his report on the aforesaid two Letters, dated 14-10-2011 and 1-9-2012. However, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the Inquiry Report awarded penalty of “Dismissal from service” vide Order, dated 19-11-2016. This was appealed against but the appellate authority confirmed the order of penalty, vide Order, dated 17-4-2017. Being aggrieved by the above two orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, this OA has been filed, raising inter alia a ground that the two documents from the Controller of Examination based on which the Inquiry Officer rendered his report has not been cited as a listed documents, much less their author examined to prove the same and thus the entire proceedings get vitiated. Contesting the OA, the Respondents have stated that they had received a complaint against the Applicant from one Mr. Rual Khuana of Nongrim Hills, Shillong, wherein various allegations were labelled against the Applicant and one of the allegations was that, the Applicant had submitted false certificate while joining the ICAR. Thus, the Applicant was asked to produce the original certificate of HSLC for which he has stated that the same is in Mizoram and to bring the same it may require some time. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted a School Leaving Certificate from one Mizo High School, Madanryting, Shillong. The Respondents had by Letters, dated 7-5-2009 and 15-6-2009 asked the Headmaster of the School to verify the said certificate and send confirmation regarding authenticity of the certificate. The Headmaster replied that the verification could not be done since no records anterior to 1988 were available. The Controller of Examination also informed the Respondents that no relevant records could be traced with the Board regarding the name of the Applicant. Meanwhile on 2-8-2011, the Applicant submitted his educational documents and to verify the authenticity of the certificates, the Respondents requested the Headmaster of Kangval Secondary School, Churachandpur, Manipur to verify the same. According to the Respondents, since the letter from the Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and Controller of Examinations, has made it clear that the Applicant never approached before the HSLC examination, there is no necessity to appoint any external agency as from the documents it is proved that the Applicant had submitted a false certificate. In the course of arguments, the Applicant relied upon the following decisions:

(a) Iqbal Nath Sharma (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Union of India and another [ (2016)14 SCC 243 ]

(b) Union of India v. Lala Prasad Singh [2018(1) GLT 837]

(c) Chand Mahammad v. Indian Oil Corporation [(1998 (3) GLT 532]