W.P.(C)/3794/2011 of HITESS SAGAR Vs UOI AND ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON: 31.10.2014

+W.P. (C) 3794/2011

HITESH SAGAR

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. K.C. Mittal & Ms. RuchikaMittal, Advs.

versus

UOI AND ORS

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSCwith Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. forUOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIS.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

1.The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2010 of theCentral Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application in OA289/2010. The CAT also rejected his application for review by order dated10.12.2010.The petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent(hereinafterreferredtoas“GovernmentofIndiaPress”),discharging/terminating him from its service on 18.01.2010.2.Briefly the facts are that the petitioner responded through applicationto the advertisement by the Government of India Press, seeking applicationsfrom candidates for the post of Artist Retoucher on temporary basis inGovernment of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri in the pay scale of `5500-

9000/-.The qualifications required for the post of Artist Retoucher was“degree in Printing Technology from recognised university or institution,with two years experience or diploma in Printing Technology (Offset) from arecognized Institute of Printing and three years experience in Scanning,Planning and Retouching in an offset establishment of repute”. Thepetitioner was interviewed after he was successful in trade test, he joinedthe services pursuant to the offer of temporary appointment on 13.03.2008.In support of his claim that he possessed the requisite experience, thepetitioner had relied upon two certificates issued by M/s Peregrine FacilitiesManagement Systems Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that he worked with thatorganization for the period 01.05.2004 to 27.01.2007. He also relied upon acertificate issued by M/s Paxton Trexim Private Ltd. (HT Media) stating thathe had worked with that organisation between 29.08.2003 to 30.04.2004 as aTrainee Executive in production department.

3.On 07.07.2009 petitioner was directed to submit documentaryevidence such as appointment letter, relieving order, salary slip/statement,identity card, ESI card of PF statement towards proof of employment withthe said two concerns. Accordingly, he produced the certificates he reliedupon to demonstrate his experience.On 18.01.2010, the petitioner wasterminated from the services. This impelled him to approach the CAT withan application. In the course of the proceedings, Government of India Press,in its reply alleged that upon inquiry as to the genuineness of the certificatesrelied upon by the petitioner, it was found that both the concerns did notexist at the address given.The relevant averments in that record are asfollows:-

“That further, while applying for the post of Artist Retoucher

the applicant had submitted an experience certificate dated28.07.2006 from M/s Paxton Traxim Private Limited for theperiod 29.08.03 to 30.04.04 i.e. 8 months and 2 days. Later onhe submitted another experience certificate dated 28.07.2006from M/s Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt;Ltd.RZ- B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi -37 for the period01.05.04 to 28.07.06 i.e. 2 years, 2 months and 28 days. It wasnoticed that the signatories of experience certificates obtainedfrom Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. andPaxton Trexim Pvt. Ltd and furnished by the applicant at thetime of application for the post of Artist Retoucher appeared tobe the same which was noticed by the recruitment committee ofthe Govt. of India Press, Maya Puri. The genuineness of thecertificates was investigated by the Directorate of Printing andit was found that there was no company by the name of M/sPeregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt. Ltd at RZ-1B,KapasheraCrossing,NewDelhi.Therefore,histotalexperience was 2 years and 11 months, which includes 2 years,two months and 28 days in non-existent company.3.That moreover, according to the recruitment rules acandidate must have three years experience in scanning,planning and retouching in an offset establishment of repute inaddition to diploma in printing technology (offset).In theexperience certificate furnished by the applicant one of whichwas from non-existent company, it is not mentioned that hehas gained experience in scanning, planning and retouchingappeared to be the same which was not noticed by therecruitment committee of the Govt. of India Press, Mayapuri.Thegenuineness of the certificates was investigated by theDirectorate of Printing and it was found that there was nocompany by the name of Peregrine Facilities ManagementSystems Pvt. Ltd. at RZ-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi.Therefore, his total experience was 2 years and 11 monthswhich includes 2 years, two months and 28 days in non-existent company”

4.After considering the parties’ contentions, the CAT, by its impugned

order dated 24.09.2010 rejected the petitioner’s application principally onthe basis that temporary government appointee had no enforceable right tosuch employment and that the impugned order terminating his services on18.1.2010 was not stigmatic. The petitioner’s attempt to have the orderreviewed was unsuccessful.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner has made threefold submissions.One, that after the termination order was made on 18.01.2010, theGovernment of India Press independently proceeded to hold inquiry into thealleged misconduct of one Mr. S.R. Bodra, Chairman of the SelectionCommittee in respect of its specific irregularity in the recruitment inquestion.It is pointed out that the inquiry report completely exonerated thecharged official of the allegation to the effect that the documents were notgenuine.Learned counsel emphasized that once the officers of theconcerned firms, i.e. M/s Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt. Ltd.and M/s Paxton Trexim Private Ltd. had verified the authenticity of thedocuments and certificates issued to the petitioner, the opinion - based onwhich the termination order was made on 18.01.2010, disappeared andconsequently the petitioner deserves to be re-instated.Learned counselhighlighted that once the genuineness of the certificate was established andthe concerned officer from HT Media Ltd. Shri Rampal Singh, Executive(HR)stated that experience in the prescribed field covered under theprocesses of printing were possessed by the petitioner, there ought to havebeen not question of allowing the termination order to stand.Learnedcounsel lastly submitted that having regard to the decision of the SupremeCourt in Union of India vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi AIR 2010 SC 3493, anywhisper of misconduct necessitates public employer to hold an enquiry if it

proposes to terminate temporary employee or probationer.Thesubsequent decision in State Bank of India and Anr. vs. Palak Modi & Anr.2013 (3) SCC 607 was also relied upon.

6.Counsel for Union of India submits that the Court should not interferewith the order of the CAT.It was argued that inquiry held against Mr.Bodra proceeded on different angle, i.e., the role played by him asChairman of the Recruitment Committee.Counsel emphasized furtheraction on the enquiry report as yet has not been taken and in thecircumstances this Court should base its decision on the report itself. It washighlighted, in addition, that the consistent stand of the Government of IndiaPress, quite apart from the genuineness of the certificates relied upon by thepetitioner is that he did not possess the requisite experience.Learnedcounsel relied upon the tenor and terms of the certificate themselves to saythat nowhere did either or both of them disclose that the petitioner possessedexperience in the requisite areas much less “reputed establishments”. Tosupport this submission, learned counsel relied upon file notings ofGovernment of India Press in this regard.

7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions.The issuessurroundingtheterminationletterimpugnedbeforeCATrequiredconsideration of two aspects.

(i)the determination about the genuineness of the certificatesfurnished by the petitioner from the two concerns i.e. M/s PeregrineFacilities Management Systems Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Paxton Trexim PrivateLtd. as to the initial report received by the respondent-Government of IndiaPress – evident from letter written to the Manager, Government of IndiaPress on 19.05.2009 which is part of the record is that the two firms were

not found at the given address on the face of the certificates. While there isno action, this fact of the matter did weigh the decision making, in additionto holding enquiry to determining that the petitioner did not possess requisitequalification in terms of the certificates given by him, the fact remains thatas far as this aspect was concerned, the subsequent exoneration of Mr. Bodrato an extent undermines the determination itself. The finding in this regardto the discharge against Mr. Bodra is to the following effect:-

“Shri S.R. Bodra, while functioning as Chairman of theRecruitment Committee for making selection to the post ofArtist Retoucher in the Govt. of India Press, Maya Puri, NewDelhi on 5.2.2008 failed to point out the experience certificatesproduced by Shri Hitesh Sagar from M/s Paxton Trexim Pvt.Ltd. and M/s Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt.Ltd. do not certify that he has experience of only 2 years and 11months as against the experience of three years prescribed inthe Recruitment Rules.Therefore, Shri S.R. Baroda failed inhis duty as the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee andselected Shri Hitesh Sagar who did not fulfill the conditions oreligibility as prescribed in the recruitment rules.

During the enquiry, it has been observed from theexperience certificates produced by Shri Hitesh Sagar that hehad worked with different firms i.e. M/s Paxton TreximPvt.Limited and M/s Peregrine Facilities Management Systems Pvt.Limited and was deployed at the sites of HT Media Limited.Subsequently, the genuineness of the certificates was alsoverified by the firms vide M/s Paxton Trexim Private Limited’sletterdated12.05.20-09andM/sPeregrineFacilitiesManagement Systems Private Limited’s letter dated 03.06.2010.However, the undersigned issued Notices (By Speed Post andBY FAX) to Shri Ram Pal Singh, Executive (HR) and ShriDavidson, HR Department, HT Media Limited for appearanceof Shri Ram Pal Singh regarding the genuineness andverification of all the experience certificates issued by him toShri Hitesh Sagar. As per the statements given on 05.-11.2012

by Shri Ram Pal Singh, Executive (HR), HT Media Limited thatShri Hitesh Sagar has worked for total period of 03 years 04months 29 days with different two firms i.e. M/s Paxton TreximPvt. Ltd and M/s Peregrine Facilities Management SystempsPvt. Ltd in the prescribed field fully covered under processesand printing operations.Shri Ram Pal Singh has physicallyauthenticated and verified the experience certificates issuedunder this signatures.

The copies of documents i.e. PAN Card No. [REDACTED] issued by the Incocome Tax Department, Government ofIndia to M/s Peregrine Facilities Management Systems PrivateLimited and Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrarof Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana submitted by ShriRam Pal Singh during the enquiry on 05.11.2012.Thesedocuments have not been declared incorrect by the issuingauthorities.

It has been observed during the enquiry that no officialletter(s)sentbyPostorotherwisebytheManager,Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi.As such, it is not understood that what prompted them to carryout the field enquiry. Thus, it is needless to mention that theexistence of the firms cannot be challenged on the basis ofvarious documents produced during the enquiry, which hadbeen issued by the different Government Departments.”

8.At the same time this Court is conscious of the fact that no finalorders have been made by the disciplinary authority. The file noting on theother documents, in the court proceedings, indicate that it was not thepetitioner’s recruitment which was under scrutiny before the departmentalproceedings - but others as well.Further, Mr. Bodra as part of theRecruitment Committee, was subject to the departmental proceedings andchargesheets.In the view it cannot be said that the view expressed waswholly without foundation.

9.As far as the question of experience is concerned, this Court is of theopinion that even after the certificates are found to be genuine this facet hasto be viewed separately.In other words, the decision making of theGovernment of India Press as to the suitability of the candidate based on theexperience certificate would then be on the assumption that certificates aregenuine.

10.The file noting preceding the termination order- the last of which hasmade observations about the petitioner’s experience - is forthright; in this,the concerned authorities consistently were of the opinion that experiencecertificates were unclear as to the nature of the processes undertaken by thepetitioner. Finally the two certificates do not spell out in any manner as towhat was the work which prevailed in the two firms which the petitionerwas involved or the nature of duties and responsibilities he discharged.Having regard to the circumstances this Court is of the opinion thatpetitioner’s argument that the termination order is illegal, is not sound.Mahaveer Singh (supra) is an authority for situations in which the publicemployer proposes to dispense with the services of the probationer based onan alleged misconduct. In that case, it was held that if an order of dischargeis passed as punitive measurewithout giving the probationer anopportunity to defend himself, then it would be invalid. On the other hand,“if no enquiry was held or contemplated and the allegations were merely amotive for the passing of an order without giving him hearing, the samewould be valid. (para 31)”. The Court is to look at the real intention . Insuch circumstances, the Supreme Court has ruled in Dipti Prakash Banerjeev. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta AIR1999 SC 983 that if the authority is satisfied on the basis of existing material

that the employee is not suitable to hold the post there is no obligation tohold an enquiry.

11.In view of this circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that no faultcan be found in the impugned order of the CATcan be found in the impugned order of the CAT

12.The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT(JUDGE)

OCTOBER 31, 2014/nk

VIPIN SANGHI(JUDGE)