Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mahendra Sheshanna Sattellu, was appointed as a Mill Write (semi-skilled) in the Ammunition Factory, Pune, on 14 July 1997 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. He produced a caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Pune, dated 30 October 1991, claiming to belong to the Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. His father, Sheshanna Laxman Sattellu, had also claimed the same caste while entering service in 1949. On 13 September 2005, the respondent No.3 referred the petitioner's caste certificate to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, by order dated 26 March 2009, invalidated the caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish his tribe claim as Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe, based on documentary evidence and affinity test. Consequently, the caste certificate was cancelled and confiscated. Following the invalidation, the respondent No.3 issued a chargesheet to the petitioner on 6 July 2009 under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, for violation of sub-rule 1(i) and (iii) of Rule 3, alleging that he had submitted a false caste certificate. After a disciplinary inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated 17 January 2011. The petitioner challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No.46 of 2012, which was dismissed on 5 September 2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties. The petitioner argued that his father had consistently claimed the same caste and that the Scrutiny Committee's order was not binding on the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents contended that the invalidation of the caste certificate was final and binding, and the petitioner had obtained employment by fraud. The High Court held that the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the caste certificate is binding on the disciplinary authority. The court noted that the petitioner failed to establish his tribe claim and that the penalty of removal from service was proportionate to the misconduct. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Caste Certificate - False Claim - Removal from Service - Petitioner's caste certificate was invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee - Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal from service - Central Administrative Tribunal confirmed the penalty - High Court held that the penalty is proportionate and not disproportionate - Petitioner failed to establish his tribe claim as Mannewar, Scheduled Tribe - Removal from service is justified (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner for submitting a false caste certificate is proportionate and justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The penalty of removal from service was held to be proportionate and justified.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on employee to establish caste claim
- Invalidation of caste certificate by Scrutiny Committee is binding
- Disciplinary proceedings based on false caste claim are valid
- Removal from service is proportionate penalty for submitting false caste certificate
