Read Time: 10 minutes

The Madras High Court last week ordered compulsory retirement of an employee of Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research who had gained employment by submitting a fake Scheduled Caste community certificate.

A division bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that though the employee was appointed only under the 'Open Category' and further promotions were based on the merit, the initial appointment itself was ‘void ab Initio' when it was based on a fake certificate produced by the employee concealing certain facts.

Court directed that the employee shall be eligible for only 40% of the pension benefits and not eligible for any other terminal benefits, such as gratuity, DCRG, and the like, excluding the PF contribution, if any made by the employee.

In 1986, the Baba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) called applications for In-Plant training. The prescribed age limit for application was between 18 and 20 years of age with an upper age relaxation of 5 years for persons belonging to the SC/ST community.

The concerned employee who belonged to a backward community and was 24-year-old at that time claimed reservation under the SC community and had submitted a fake certificate.

Upon completion of training, the concerned employee was appointed as Tradesman/C in BARC, Mumbai. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Tradesman/D and was transferred on his request to Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam.

While so, upon complaint by the General Secretary, SC/ST Association of Department of Atomic Energy an FIR was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC on the charge of gaining Government Employment by submitting a fake certificate, and the concerned employee was arrested and was placed under deemed suspension.

On verification, the District Vigilance Committee (Community Certificate Verification) found that employee belonged to Hindu Thuluva Vellalar which was listed as a Backward Community (BC). A charge memo was issued to which the respondent replied.

Subsequently, a representation was submitted by the 1st respondent in the case dated May 31, 2013, by seeking to defer the departmental action till the final disposal of the Criminal Case which was rejected by the petitioner herein. This rejection was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the disciplinary proceedings ought to be got in abeyance until a finality is reached in the criminal proceedings. The present writ petition was filed challenging the aforementioned order.

The petitioner (Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam - IGCAR) submitted that the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously.

IGCAR relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others (2007), M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999), and M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) and Addl. GM-Human Resource, Bharat Heavy ElectricalsLtd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) wherein it was observed that departmental proceedings can be continued.

IGCAR further submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra (2022) where it was held that appointments made in contravention of the statutory proceedings are void ab initio.

Court observed that there was a delay on the part of the department as the order of the Tribunal was challenged after 7 years. However, the respondent could not be allowed to take the benefit of such technicality.

“The mistake committed by the Department cannot be taken advantage of by the Applicant and he cannot be let off scot-free on technicalities, as a moral value will have to prevail over legal values and it is adjudged based on moral values, as held by the Supreme Court that it must be remembered that we are living in a democratic society governed by the Rule of Law and every Government, which claims to be inspired by ethical or moral values must do what is fair and just, regardless of legal technicalities. Further, in the absence of society with moral values, there would be no social order”, Court stated.

Court also observed that both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously as the employer can proceed with departmental proceedings if the criminal proceedings are not initiated or concluded within one year from the date of the FIR. The court observed that in criminal proceedings, the matter has to be proved beyond doubt while in departmental proceedings charges can be established based on a preponderance of probabilities.

"The initial appointment of the respondent is itself void ab initio as he could not have even applied for employment if not for the relaxation of 5 years that he sought through the SC Certificate", Court added.

Case Title: Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research v. Shri. D. Ganesan and Anr.