Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jagan Ganpatrao Taklikar, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 18th December 1972 based on his claim of belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. His caste claim was invalidated on 3rd March 2000. He filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 1737/2000) which was disposed of on 13th June 2001, granting him liberty to make a representation to his employer. His representation was rejected. Meanwhile, departmental proceedings were initiated against him for suppression of material fact regarding his caste claim. He was found guilty and his services were terminated by order dated 12th August 2005. He filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 2147/2005) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 28th April 2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The respondent-employer argued that the case is not covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921) because the petitioner was found guilty of suppression of material facts in departmental proceedings. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the departmental proceedings had found the petitioner guilty of suppression of material facts, and therefore the case is not covered by the Kavita Solunke judgment. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination order and the Tribunal's decision.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Suppression of Material Fact - Petitioner appointed as Lower Division Clerk based on claim of belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe - Caste claim invalidated on 03.03.2000 - Departmental proceedings initiated for suppression of fact - Services terminated on 12.08.2005 - Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed OA - High Court upheld termination, holding that the petitioner was found guilty of suppression of material facts in departmental proceedings, and the case is not covered by the judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921) (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner for suppression of material fact regarding his caste claim is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the termination of the petitioner's services.
Law Points
- Termination for suppression of material fact in caste claim
- Validity of departmental proceedings after caste invalidation
- Applicability of Kavita Solunke judgment
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (11) 97
Writ Petition No. 5029/2010
B.R. Gavai, R. K. Deshpande
Shri S.R. Narnaware for petitioner, Dr. R.S. Sundaram for respondents
Union of India, The Chairman, Central Board of Workers Education, Mumbai, The Director, Central Board of Workers Education, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application against termination of service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination order dated 12.08.2005 and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated on the ground of suppression of material fact regarding his caste claim of belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, which was invalidated.
Previous Decisions
Caste claim invalidated on 03.03.2000; W.P. No. 1737/2000 disposed on 13.06.2001 with liberty to make representation; representation rejected; departmental proceedings initiated and termination order passed on 12.08.2005; O.A. No. 2147/2005 dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal on 28.04.2010.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner for suppression of material fact regarding his caste claim is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent argued that the case is not covered by Kavita Solunke judgment as petitioner was found guilty of suppression of material facts in departmental proceedings.
Petitioner argued that the termination was unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an employee is found guilty of suppression of material fact regarding his caste claim in departmental proceedings, the termination of his services is sustainable and not covered by the judgment in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2147/2005, thereby dismissing the original application filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 12.08.2005.
Dr. Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-employer submits that the present case would not cover by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kavita Solunke vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 921 inasmuch as the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding of suppression of material facts.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as LDC on 18.12.1972 based on Halba ST claim. Caste claim invalidated on 03.03.2000. Filed W.P. No. 1737/2000, disposed on 13.06.2001 with liberty to make representation. Representation rejected. Departmental proceedings initiated; termination order dated 12.08.2005. Filed O.A. No. 2147/2005 before CAT, dismissed on 28.04.2010. Filed present writ petition on 30.11.2012.
