Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 440 (GAU)

P. Rajkonwar v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

2013-06-25

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2013
JUDGMENT Mutum A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ONGC, appearing for the respondents. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-XIII) issued by the Respondent No. 2 terminating the service of the petitioner from Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). 2. The petitioner was recruited as a Soldier in the Indian Army and thereafter was enrolled as such on 23.07.1980. After about seven years of service in the Indian Army, he obtained discharge on 16.04.1987 from the Indian Army. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for filling up the post of Junior Engineer (Drilling) in the year 1991, petitioner responded to the said advertisement by filing an application dated 10.06.1991. Petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and by an order dated 06.03.1992, he was provisionally selected for a temporary post of Junior Engineer (Drilling) and on the basis thereof, he submitted his joining report on 05.05.1992. By an order dated 03.10.1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Drilling) with effect from 01.09.1997. On 01.04.2002, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Drilling). 3. On 26.04.2006, while he was so serving, a show cause notice dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure-VIII), was issued asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated with immediate effect, as the qualification certificates purported to have been issued by Indian Army, which were germane to his initial appointment as Junior Engineer (Drilling), being void ab-initio. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply on 10.05.2006 (Annexure-XI) contending that certificates produced by him were genuine and also requesting the authorities to furnish him copies of the documents relied on by them in the show cause notice dated 26.04.2006. He also reserved his right to file additional show cause reply on receipt of such documents. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an additional show cause reply on 23.05.2006. On 28.06.2006 (Annexure-XIII), the impugned order was passed terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The aforesaid order dated 28.06.2006 reads as under: OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. He also reserved his right to file additional show cause reply on receipt of such documents. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an additional show cause reply on 23.05.2006. On 28.06.2006 (Annexure-XIII), the impugned order was passed terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The aforesaid order dated 28.06.2006 reads as under: OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. OFFICE OF DIRECTOR (HR) 9TH FLOOR, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, TOWER-II 124, INDIRA CHOWK, NEW DELHI-110001 No. 46/33/PRK/2004-D & A Dated 28.6.2006 ORDER Whereas Shri P. Rajkonwar, AEE(D) CPF No. 63920 was appointed in ONGC as Junior Engineer (Drilling) w.e.f. 05.05.1992 vide Memorandum No. NZR/RECTT-3(150)/91-92 dated 06.03.1992 against the vacancy reserved for Ex-Servicemen, based on the following educational qualification certificates produced by him, purported to have been issued by Indian Army:- Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Certificate Tech. Diploma Proficiency dated 16.11.1981. Certificate Tech. Diploma Proficiency dated 06.01.1982. 2. Whereas as per R & P Regulations, 1980, the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineering (Drilling) is Diploma in Mechanical/Petroleum Engineering. The qualification certificates produced by Shri P. Rajkonwar mentioned in para 1 were germane to his employment in ONGC. 3. Whereas the said certificates have been verified with O/o Officer in charge, Armoured Corps Records, Ahmednagar after a complaint has been received in this regard. The Senior Record Officer, Kavachit Corps Abhilekh, Armoured Corps Records, Ahmednagar has confirmed vide letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08.03.2004 and reconfirmed vide letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03.04.2006, that the certificates mentioned in Para 1 above submitted by Shri P. Rajkonwar, were not issued by Army authorities and were fake. 4. Whereas Shri P. Rajkonwar was issued show cause notice bearing No. 46/33/PRK/2004-D & A dated 26.04.2006 seeking written explanation as to why his services should not be terminated with immediate effect, as the qualification certificates purported to have been issued by Indian Army, which were germane to his initial appointment in ONGC, were proved to be fake ones and the initial appointment as Junior Engineer (Drilling) being void ab-initio. 5. Whereas Shri P. Rajkonwar before submitting his written explanation dated 10.05.2006, had sought copies of certain documents vide his letter dated 05.05.2006 and vide letter No. 46/33/PRK/2004-D & A dated 08.05.2006. Accordingly, the copies of letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08.03.2004 and letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03.04.2006 issued by Sr. Records Officer, Armoured Corps Records, Ahmednagar have been supplied to him. Whereas Shri P. Rajkonwar before submitting his written explanation dated 10.05.2006, had sought copies of certain documents vide his letter dated 05.05.2006 and vide letter No. 46/33/PRK/2004-D & A dated 08.05.2006. Accordingly, the copies of letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08.03.2004 and letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03.04.2006 issued by Sr. Records Officer, Armoured Corps Records, Ahmednagar have been supplied to him. And whereas, on receipt of the aforesaid two letters, Shri P. Rajkonwar has submitted an additional explanation dated 23.05.2006 stating that the certificate submitted by him were not fake. He however, failed to produce any documents to prove the genuineness of the certificates referred to in para 1 above. 6. After having carefully gone through the written explanation submitted by Sri P. Rajkonwar and the other relevant records of the case, it is found that Shri Rajkonwar has not submitted any cognate evidence to controvert the letters dated 8th March, 04 and 3rd April. 06 issued by Sr. Records Officer, Armoured Corps Records, Ahmednagar. Therefore, 1 have come to the conclusion that Shri Rajkonwar was not having the requisite qualification for appointment as Junior Engineering (Drilling) in ONGC at the relevant point of time and obtained the appointment to the said post on forged/false documents. Hence, the appointment of Shri P. Rajkonwar to the post of Junior Engineer (Drilling) is void ab-initio. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice if the services of Shri P. Rajkonwar are terminated with immediate effect. Accordingly, the services of Shri P. Rajkonwar in ONGC are terminated with immediate effect in terms of para 3 of the declaration in attestation form submitted by him at the time of his initial appointment/joining, in the post of Junior Engineer (Drilling). Sd/Illegible (Dr. A.K. Balyan) Director (HR) Shri P. Rajkonwar, AEE(D), CPF No. 63920 Through: ED-Asset Manager Assam Asset ONGC Nazira. 4. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service of the petitioner could not have been terminated in the manner as has been done without holding a regular departmental proceeding after he had put in almost 14 years of service in the ONGC. It is submitted by Mr. 4. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that service of the petitioner could not have been terminated in the manner as has been done without holding a regular departmental proceeding after he had put in almost 14 years of service in the ONGC. It is submitted by Mr. Kataki that only on the basis of clarifications obtained from the Army authorities, the ONGC has taken a view that the certificates produced by the petitioner at the time of his recruitment to ONGC were forged documents and as such the impugned termination order is vitiated. 5. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ONGC, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, at the time of his interview, had produced a certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, apart from some other certificates. It is submitted by him that Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, 1980, for short, the Regulations, provides for qualification for appointment by way of direct recruitment as well as by promotion and qualification prescribed under the said Regulations for direct recruitment as Junior Engineer (Drilling) is Diploma in Mechanical/Petroleum Engineering or equivalent. By producing the records of selection of candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Drilling) in which the petitioner had participated, the learned counsel further submits that the entries were made therein with regard to each and every candidate including marks and the submission of documents. The entries in respect of the petitioner unequivocally demonstrate that the petitioner had produced Diploma Certificate in Mechanical Engineering from Indian Army. He has also submitted that all the candidates who had appeared in the interview, including the petitioner, had signed against their names. It is further submitted that complaint was subsequently received by the ONGC that certificates furnished by the petitioner from Army were not genuine and accordingly, response from the Army authorities were obtained. The Army authorities had categorically asserted that the documents in question were fake and therefore, based on paragraph 3 of the appointment order dated 6.3.1992, which provided for removal of the services of an employee if it is subsequently found that information furnished by the candidate is false, the impugned order dated 28.06.2006 was passed. He submits that there was no necessity to hold any disciplinary proceeding. He submits that there was no necessity to hold any disciplinary proceeding. The learned counsel also argues that against the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Army authorities, wherein, amongst others, they have narrated in detail the procedure prescribed for grant of certificates, has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit The contention is further advanced that the stand taken by the writ petitioner in the writ petition is ambivalent though in the show cause reply dated 23.5.06, he had made a categorical assertion that a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was issued in his name. Accordingly, he submits that no case is made out for interference with the order of termination issued by the ONGC. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record including the records produced by Mr. Roy. 7. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 may be noticed at the outset. 6. On receipt of the above certificates from ONGC, Armoured Corps. Records vide letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03 Feb 2004 has forwarded the following certificates to the concerned Regiments for verification: In reply to Armoured Corps Records letter mentioned above, Automotive Regiment vide their letter No. 6539//3/A dated 17 Feb 2004 (Refer page 42 of WP) has intimated that no such certificates dated 30 Oct 1981 and 06 Jan 1982 were issued to the petitioner. Electronic Regiment has also intimated that Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Certificate was not issued to the petitioner vide their letter No. 1019/10/G dated 20 Feb 2004 (Refer page 41 of the WP). This matter was communicated to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Nazira vide Armoured Corps Records letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08 Mar 2004 (Ref page 39 of WP). 7. On receiving Armoured Corps Records letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08 Mar 2004, Deputy Manager (P & A) ONGC, Nazira, Assam has personally visited Armoured Corps Records Office on 03 Apr 2006 to verify the facts. Subsequently, Armoured Corps Records letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03 Apr 2006 (As per page 43 of WP) had confirmed that, there is nothing recorded in the service documents of the petitioner regarding passing of the following courses for which he had produced the certificates: (a) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (b) Certificate of Technical Diploma Proficiency dated 18 Nov 1981. Subsequently, Armoured Corps Records letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 03 Apr 2006 (As per page 43 of WP) had confirmed that, there is nothing recorded in the service documents of the petitioner regarding passing of the following courses for which he had produced the certificates: (a) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (b) Certificate of Technical Diploma Proficiency dated 18 Nov 1981. (c) Certificate of Technical Diploma Proficiency dated 06 Jan 1982. 8. As and when any test is to be conducted in Army, a proper Board of officers is constituted for testing the candidates and course certificates are issued to the candidates who qualify/pass the test. The above mentioned certificates produced by the petitioner at the time of recruitment into ONGC stated to have been issued by Army authorities were fake as the petitioner was never issued with such certificates as confirmed by Armoured Corps Records letter No. 1065585/Coord/SR/NER dated 08 Mar. 2004. 9. * * * 10. * * * 11. * * * 12. That the Deponent begs to submit that there is no mention of any of the following qualifications in Annexure 1, which he has claimed to have obtained prior to 1984 in the Army. Further, had he actually obtained these qualifications then he would not have sought for a transfer from the trade of a Driver to that of a Clerk, but would have preferred a change to a vehicle mechanic. (a) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (b) Certificate Technical Diploma Proficiency dated 16.11.1981. (c) Certificate Technical Diploma Proficiency dated 06.01.1982. 13. * * * 14. That the Deponent begs to submit that in the Army, as and when an individual obtains a qualification/technical proficiency, it is always followed by publication of a Part II order, which is recorded in the Service Book of the individual. 15. * * * 16. That the Deponent begs to submit the following in this regard: (a) That as and when any test is required to be conducted in Army, a proper board of officers is duly constituted to examine the candidates as can be seen from Annexures II of the WP. (b) That the course certificates are thereafter issued to the successful candidates. (c) That such result are published as Part II orders and recorded in the Service Book of the individual. (b) That the course certificates are thereafter issued to the successful candidates. (c) That such result are published as Part II orders and recorded in the Service Book of the individual. (d) That in this case no Part II Order has been found to be published or recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner, in respect of these claimed qualifications. (e) That further, it is a point beyond imagination, as to how a Radio Squadron of Electronic Regiment, who deals with Radio-Communication system, could issue a certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, a subject which is not dealt with by them at all. In the writ petition, averments have been made that petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Drilling). He had produced before the Interview Board certain certificates of Technical Proficiency and none of the certificate was relating to Technical Diploma. No averment is made in the writ petition as to whether he had produced the certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. If the certificate of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was not produced, the petitioner could not have been appointed as the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post Junior Engineer (Drilling) is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Petroleum Engineering or equivalent. The proceedings of the Selection Board reveals that the qualification noted against the name of the petitioner was Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Indian Army. Therefore, though it is sought to be faintly contended by Mr. Kataki that the petitioner did not submit the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at the time of interview, I am unable to accept this submission as in the show cause notice dated 23.05.06, the categorical stand of the petitioner was that he was issued a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. If that be so, it will be only rational to hold that he would produce the same before the Selection Board when the qualification prescribed for the post is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Apparently, the petitioner now wants to distance himself from the said Diploma Certificate. If that be so, it will be only rational to hold that he would produce the same before the Selection Board when the qualification prescribed for the post is Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Apparently, the petitioner now wants to distance himself from the said Diploma Certificate. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the face of categorical averments made in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, that the documents in question were fake and not issued by the Army authorities, besides explaining in detail the process of issue of certificates, which necessarily, are to be recorded in the service Book, the petitioner has chosen to remain silent, although such affidavit was filed more than five years back. There were no entries in the Service Book of the petitioner in respect of the qualifications in question. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner had failed to raise even a semblance of doubt about the correctness of the complaint regarding submission of false documents by him by producing some other relevant contemporaneous material before the authorities, it was not necessary for ONGC to have conducted a regular departmental proceeding and the ONGC could invoke the provision contained in the appointment order for removal of the services of the petitioner though, in fact, in the instant case, instead of removal, order of termination came to be issued. In view of the discussions above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.