UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus A. NAGAMALLESHWAR RAO

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 18-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
A. NAGAMALLESHW AR RAO 
NOVEMBER 18, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G. T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964-Rule 3(/)(i) (iii)-
Dismissal-Telephone Operator obtained Employment by misrepresentating C 
his marks in SSC Exam-Original Certificates not produced for verification-
Departmental enquiry-Dismissal-Tribunal held that the finding was based 
upon no evidence-Order of dismissal quashed-On appeal. Held, order of 
termination legal and proper-Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by examining 
the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer as if it was a Court of D 
appeal-Z register maintained as official record is a public document 
authenticated by a competent authority-Tribunal ought to have accepted 
the same. 
The respondent by misrepresentating his marks in the SSC 
Examination obtained employment as Telephone Operator. In spite of repeated E 
demands by the department the SSC certificate was not produced for 
verification. On enquiry from the Headmaster of the School, it was found that 
respondent had secured only 48. 6% marks whereas it was disclosed in the 
entry made in the Z register that he had secured 79.80% marks. As the 
respondent had obtained the employment wrongfully and in contravention of 
Rule 3(1)(i)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, a departmental enquiry F 
was held against him. The charge was held proved and an order of dismissal 
was passed against him. Appeal to the Director (Telecom) as also revision 
application to the Board having failed, Respondent approached the Tribunal 
which allowed the application and held that the proof of charge was based 
upon no evidence and therefore the consequential order of punishment deserved G 
to be quashed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order of termination cannot be said to be improper or 
bad and the Tribunal was in error in holding otherwise. (173-CI 
169 
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. The respondent had secured only 48.6% marks and the last 
B 
candidate who was appointed has secured 70.6% marks. Thus the respondent 
did not deserve to be appointed and could not have been appointed but for the 
mistake committed by the concerned officer or the fraud committed by the 
respondent. p 73-B-q 
1.3. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that in spite of being repeatedly 
called upon to produce either the original certificate of marks or a duplicate 
copy, the respondent had failed to produce the same for verification. The 
Tribunal also failed to appreciate that but for the fraud committed either by 
the respondent himself or by him along with others, a false entry of marks 
C could not have been made in the register and that the original application 
form and the certificate would not have disappeared from the records of the 
office. 1172-H; 173-A-Bl 
2. The approach of the Tribunal was erroneous as it had proceeded to 
examine the inquiry proceedings as if it was hearing an appeal in a criminal 
D case. It exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the extr<1ct which was 
produced from the Z register was not legal evidence and could not have relied 
upon by the inquiry officer. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the register 
was maintained in the office of Divisional Engineer as an official record and 
it was thus in the nature of a public document. It was duly authenticated by 
E a competent officer. The Tribunal after stating that the strict rules of 
procedure and proof do not apply to a departmental inquiry, committed an 
error in applying the same in this case. 1172-C-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7766of1997. 
'"' 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.96 of the Central Administrative 
G 
Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1139of1992. 
K.N. Bhat, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Nanda, A. K. Shanna and 
C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. 
L. Nageshwara Prasad, G.R.K. Prasad, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and V.S. 
Reddy for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
NANA VA TI, J. Leave granted. 
•·' 
U.0.1. v.A.N. RAO [NANAVATI, J.) 
171 
..,. 
The Union of India is challenging in this appeal the order passed by A 
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in 0.A. No. I I 39 of 
1992. 
The respondent was appointed as a Telephone Operator on 24th June, 
198 I by the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Eluru on provisional basis. By an 
order dated 20th May, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.