# Neelu Dwivedi v. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 393
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 202 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neelu-dwivedi-v-artificial-limbs-manufacturing-corp-of-india-ors-47110
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Sri Bal Mukund, Sri Rahul Shukla

A.
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation of India, Kanpur, Conduct,
Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1975 - Rule 20
(1) - Suspension -Departmental enquiry
- Charge of obtaining the graduation
degree
and
training
certificate
simultaneously even both being regular
courses
-Employer's
Jurisdiction
to
conduct it - Writ petitioner possessed
verifiable
graduation
degree
and
a
vocational training certificate - Held, till
such time the certificates are cancelled
by the University or the Body that issued
them, the employer having acted upon
them, in our view, would now have no
jurisdiction to question the correctness of
those certificates, after 20 years of their
acceptance, by assuming that both the
courses being regular could not have
been undertaken simultaneously - A
charge-sheet, however, may be quashed
if it is without jurisdiction or on the
face of it illegal. (Para 20A and 25)
B. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Charge of not having requisite work
experience at the time of selection -
Validity - In the advertisement, the
condition of work experience was made
relaxable -Held, after 20 years of service,
it does not lie in the mouth of the
employer to say that the appellant made
a misstatement with respect to her work
experience,
particularly,
when
that
misstatement could not have earned her
an offer of appointment, unless that
condition was relaxed or waived. (Para
26 and 28)
C. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Quashing of the charge-sheet - Principle
laid down - (a) Long delay in initiation of
departmental
inquiry,
in
absence
of
proper explanation, if proves prejudicial
to the incumbent, may be a ground to
quash the charge-sheet; (b) ordinarily, a
charge-sheet is not to be quashed by
examining
the
correctness
of
the
charge(s) levelled therein as that is to be
examined in the inquiry; (c) a chargesheet, however, may be quashed if it is
without jurisdiction or on the face of it
illegal; (d) if a decision is taken to quash
the charge-sheet at the threshold, regard
be had not only to the facts but also to
the gravity of the misconduct alleged;
and (e) where there is fraud played by an
employee to secure appointment, the
appointment gets vitiated and, in such a
scenario, no equity comes in favour of
the appointee to challenge the initiation
of
proceedings
to
question
his
appointment on mere ground of delay.
(Para 20A)
Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,999 of 63,956. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._

7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
393
the Commissioner of Police, Gautam
Buddh
Nagar
by
the
Registar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)07ILR A393
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 202 of 2021

Neelu Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of
India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Varma, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
Sri Shesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bal Mukund, Sri Rahul Shukla

A.
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation of India, Kanpur, Conduct,
Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1975 - Rule 20
(1) - Suspension -Departmental enquiry
- Charge of obtaining the graduation
degree
and
training
certificate
simultaneously even both being regular
courses
-Employer's
Jurisdiction
to
conduct it - Writ petitioner possessed
verifiable
graduation
degree
and
a
vocational training certificate - Held, till
such time the certificates are cancelled
by the University or the Body that issued
them, the employer having acted upon
them, in our view, would now have no
jurisdiction to question the correctness of
those certificates, after 20 years of their
acceptance, by assuming that both the
courses being regular could not have
been undertaken simultaneously - A
charge-sheet, however, may be quashed
if it is without jurisdiction or on the
face of it illegal. (Para 20A and 25)
B. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Charge of not having requisite work
experience at the time of selection -
Validity - In the advertisement, the
condition of work experience was made
relaxable -Held, after 20 years of service,
it does not lie in the mouth of the
employer to say that the appellant made
a misstatement with respect to her work
experience,
particularly,
when
that
misstatement could not have earned her
an offer of appointment, unless that
condition was relaxed or waived. (Para
26 and 28)
C. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Quashing of the charge-sheet - Principle
laid down - (a) Long delay in initiation of
departmental
inquiry,
in
absence
of
proper explanation, if proves prejudicial
to the incumbent, may be a ground to
quash the charge-sheet; (b) ordinarily, a
charge-sheet is not to be quashed by
examining
the
correctness
of
the
charge(s) levelled therein as that is to be
examined in the inquiry; (c) a chargesheet, however, may be quashed if it is
without jurisdiction or on the face of it
illegal; (d) if a decision is taken to quash
the charge-sheet at the threshold, regard
be had not only to the facts but also to
the gravity of the misconduct alleged;
and (e) where there is fraud played by an
employee to secure appointment, the
appointment gets vitiated and, in such a
scenario, no equity comes in favour of
the appointee to challenge the initiation
of
proceedings
to
question
his
appointment on mere ground of delay.
(Para 20A)
Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. P.V. Mahadevan Vs MD. T.N. Housing Board;
(2005) 6 SCC 636
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. St. of A.P. Vs N. Radhakishan; (1998) 4 SCC
154
3. St. of Punj. & ors. Vs Chaman Lal Goyal;
(1995) 2 SCC 570
4. UCO Bank & ors. Vs Rajendra Shankar
Shukla; (2018) 14 SCC 92
5. Sarwan Singh Lamba & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
(1995) 4 SCC 546
6. Sanatan Gauda Vs Berhampur University;
(1990) 3 SCC 23
7. District Collector, Vijyanagram Vs M. Tripura
Sundari Devi; 1990 (4) SLR 237
8. District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Society,
Vizianagaram & anr. Vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi;
(1990) 3 SCC 655
9. Ram Saran Vs IG of Police, CRPF & ors.;
(2006) 2 SCC 541
10. Secretary, Ministry of Defence & ors. Vs
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha; (2012) 11 SCC 565
11. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Upendra Singh; (1994) 3
SCC 357
12.U.O.I. & anr. Vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana;
(2006) 12 SCC 28
13. E.P. Royappa Vs St. of T.N.& anr.; (1974) 4
SCC 3.
14. St of Bihar& anr. Vs P.P. Sharma; 1992
Supp (1) SCC 222.
15. St. of M.P. Vs Bani Singh & anr.; 1990
(Supp) SCC 738
16. Bharti Reddy Vs St. of Karn. & ors.; (2018) 6
SCC 162
17. Dr. M.S. Mudhol & anr. Vs S.D. Halegkar &
ors; (1993) 3 SCC 591
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.

1. This intra-court appeal arises from
a judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 of a
Single Judge in Writ A No. 7132 of 2020
disposing off the writ petition of the
appellant.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO
THE APPEAL

2. The appellant (writ petitioner @
petitioner) filed Writ A No. 7132 of 2020
for quashing the suspension order dated
16.12.2019 and five departmental chargesheets issued to her as also for a direction
upon the respondents not to take coercive
action against her pursuant to the said
charge-sheets.

3. The appellant was appointed as
Secretary to the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director (for short CMD), Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing Corporation of India (for
short ALIMCO), Kanpur, a Government of
India undertaking, vide letter dated May
10, 2000, on her selection pursuant to an
Advertisement
dated
20.02.2000.
She
joined
the post
on 01.06.2000.
On
21.08.2007, she was designated as Deputy
Manager (P & A) with additional duties at
CMD
Secretariat
and
as
a
Public
Information
Officer.
Thereafter,
on
01.07.2012, she was promoted on E-4 level
post of Manager (P & A) and was assigned
additional duties of a Vigilance Officer.
Later, on 01.01.2015, she was promoted to
E-5 level post as Senior Manager (P & A)
and, on 03.08.2018, was transferred to
APOC (ALIMCO Prosthetic and Orthotic
Centre) from P & A department. It is the
case of the appellant that a close relative of
the CMD (third respondent) was appointed
as Marketing Officer in the respondent
company in the year 2015. A complaint in
respect of nepotism was made in the
Ministry
concerned.
Some
officers,
inimical to the appellant, poisoned the third
respondent that the complaint is at the
behest of the appellant. As a consequence
whereof, persecution of the appellant began
resulting in issuance of five charge-sheets
preceded by suspension.
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
395

4. In the writ petition the appellant
claimed that the charge-sheets were to harass
the petitioner by raising stale and frivolous
issues; and were deliberately issued during
the lock-down period to conduct enquiry
through virtual mode to the detriment of the
petitioner even though it was not permissible
under the Rules.

5. The learned Single Judge by the
impugned judgment and order rejected the
prayer of the appellant to quash the chargesheets and the order of suspension, however,
after recording the undertaking of the
respondents that they would hold a de novo
inquiry in respect of three charge-sheets dated
01.06.2020; 12.06.2020; and 13.06.2020,
wherein
the
inquiry
had
proceeded
substantially, the learned Single Judge
disposed off the petition by providing that the
enquiry officer would conduct the inquiry at
Kanpur; the appellant would cooperate in the
inquiry and would not seek unnecessary
adjournments; the reply to the charge-sheets
would be submitted within a month, if not
already filed, and the inquiries shall be
completed within a period of three months
provided the appellant co-operates.

6. Aggrieved with the refusal of the
prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheets
and the order of suspension, this intra-court
appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner
against the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge.

7. We have heard Sri Shesh Kumar and
Sri Tarun Varma for the appellants; Sri Rahul
Shukla and Sri Bal Mukund, for the
respondents.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE
ALLEGATIONS IN THE IMPUGNED
CHARGE-SHEETS

8. Before we proceed to notice the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it would be apposite for us to have
a glimpse at the five impugned chargesheets and the order of suspension dated
16.12.2019 to have a clear understanding of
the context.

9. The impugned order of suspension
has been passed by the General Manager
(Marketing) & Disciplinary Authority in
contemplation of departmental inquiry in
exercise of power conferred upon it by
Rule 20 (1) of the Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation
of
India,
Kanpur, Conduct, Discipline & Appeal
Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules, 1975).
The suspension order does not specify the
misconduct with reference to which the
appellant was placed under suspension.

10. The five impugned charge-sheets
were collectively filed as Annexure 4 to the
writ petition. The allegations in those
charge-sheets
along
with
our
brief
observation in respect of the thrust of the
charge(s) mentioned therein are being
summarised below:

10(i).
Charge-sheet
dated
13.03.2020 (Reference No. GM(M)A30/ND/01) (hereinafter referred to as the
first charge-sheet) contains two articles of
charge:

ARTICLE 1 is to the effect that
according to the advertisement, pursuant to
which
the
petitioner
applied
for
appointment, the educational qualification
prescribed was (i) Graduate in any
discipline with a speed of 100/40 wpm in
the Shorthand/Typing and (ii) Diploma in
Secretarial Practice from a recognised
institute. In her curriculum vitae (for short
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
'CV'), against educational qualification
column, petitioner mentioned "B.Sc from
Kanpur University in the year 1996",
whereas against professional column, the
petitioner had mentioned just Secretarial
Course with Shorthand and Typing from
ITI, Kanpur. It is alleged that the petitioner
intentionally concealed year of passing the
examination as 1996 as both these
educational pursuits were regular and full
time courses and could not have been
simultaneously pursued and completed in
the same year 1996. Thus, it could be
inferred that the petitioner deliberately
concealed the year of passing in her
application, dated February 24, 2000, and
thereby obtained employment in ALIMCO
by committing fraud.

ARTICLE 2 is to the effect that
in the advertisement, in addition to the
educational qualifications, work experience
was required as follows: (i) 5 years'
experience
as
Personal
Assistant
in
Govt/Pvt.
Sector
Undertaking/Private
Sector and (ii) Proficiency in using
computer
for
secretarial
job,
having
familiarity with windows environment.
But, the petitioner in respect of the above
requirement, in her 'CV', mentioned: (i)
worked in Hotel Landmark, as Front Office
Assistant (1996), without mentioning the
exact period of such work; (ii) worked in
Shivgarh Resorts Ltd. (a member of Suman
Motels Ltd.) as a Regional Coordinator
(1996-1998), without mentioning the exact
period of such work; and (iii) presently
working with Precitex Components Mfg Co
(a Div of Lohia Starlinger), as Secretary to
General Manager, since August, 1999. It is
alleged
that
on
the
date
of
the
advertisement i.e. 20.02.2000 she did not
have work experience of 5 years as
Personal Assistant but only of about 3 years
6 months and therefore, even though the
requirement of experience was relaxed with
the approval of CMD, the petitioner did not
hold the requisite experience. It is also
alleged that when verification of the work
experience was sought from Vice President
(HR), Lohia Corp Ltd. in the year 2018, it
was intimated that the appellant had
worked there since 20.12.1999. This
indicated that the petitioner had falsely
disclosed that she was working there since
August 1999. By stating, as above, it was
alleged
that
the
petitioner
obtained
appointment by playing fraud.

Annexure III to the first chargesheet provided the material in support of
the articles of charges framed against the
petitioner.

10(ia) In respect of the charge
mentioned in Article 1, extracted above, the
advertisement,
as
published
in
the
Hindustan Times on 20.02.2000; and the
application of the writ petitioner, dated
24.02.2000, by which she applied for
appointment on the post of Secretary to
CMD by enclosing her 'CV', were amongst
others placed as documents to support the
charge. To have a clear cut understanding
of how charge mentioned in Article 1 was
drawn in the first charge sheet (supra), it
would be useful to extract paragraph nos. 5,
6 and 7 of Annexure II to the charge-sheet
(supra) below:-

"5. In order to verify the
genuineness of her qualifications and years
of passing, GM(P&C). ALIMCO and
DGM(QC) & Vigilance Officer, ALIMCO
vide Letter No. GM(P & C)/01AU dated
27.8.2018 addressed a communication to
Joint Director, Government ITI, Pandu
Nagar Kanpur, regarding the correctness
and validation of certificates of Miss Neelu
Dwivedi, Sr. Manager (APOC), ALIMCO
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
397
citing that she has declared that in the year
1996, she passed B.Sc (Biology) from S N.
Sen
College,
Kanpur
and
did
her
secretarial course from ITI/AFWWA in
1996 itself as well as worked in Hotel
Landmark
from
January,
1996
to
December, 1996. B.Sc and secretarial
course both being regular have been
completed at the same time were sought.
Joint Director (Training), Kanpur Division,
Office of Government Industrial Training
Institute, Pandunagar, Kanpur vide his
letter
No.N.C.V.T./Training/Certificate/2018/109
7, dated 4.9.2018 addressed to GM (P&C),
ALIMCO, Kanpur informed that "Ms.
Neelu Dwivedi (Enrolment No. 45416040),
D/o Shri Ramkaran Dwivedi has taken
admission in Industrial Training Institute,
Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar in the admission
session of August, 1995-96 and passed All
India Professional English Stenography
Examination in July, 1996. She has been
granted Mark Sheet under Sl. No. 92 and
133526 by State Council for Vocational
Training,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow.
Therefore, photocopy of Mark Sheet No. 92
and 133526 of Ms. Neelu Dwivedi, D/o Shri
Ramkaran Dwivedi, provided by you has
been verified from the office records and
copy duly verified is enclosed herewith.

6. Further, in order to verify the
genuineness of her qualifications and years
of passing, GM(P&C), ALIMCO and DGM
(QC) & Vigilance Officer, ALIMCO
addressed a Letter No. GM (P&C)/01/AU,
dated 30.08.2018 to Registrar, Chhatrapati
Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kalyanpur,
Kanpur enclosing therewith B.Sc certificate
of Miss Neelu Dwivedi for correctness and
validation.
Controller
of
Examination/Asstt/Dy. Registrar, Examn.
Controller, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur-208024 vide Letter
No.
C.S.J.M.U./Secret
(Verification)/1209/2018, dated 30.08.2018
informed GM (P&C), ALIMCO, Kanpur
that Miss Neelu Dwivedi passed B.Sc.
(Regular) in the year 1996 with second
division.

7. Thus, it is evident that Miss
Neelu
Dwivedi,
Senior
Manager
&
Incharge
(APOC),
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation
of
India,
Kanpur during the year 2000 vide her
application, dated 24 February, 2000, in
the curriculum vitae against educational
qualification column, had mentioned "B.Sc
from Kanpur University Year 1996".
Against professional qualification column,
she had mentioned only Secretarial Course
with Shorthand and Typing from ITI,
Kanpur and intentionally concealed year of
passing the examination as 1996. Since
both these courses are regular and full time
courses and cannot be simultaneously
pursued and completed in the same year
1996, she intentionally and deliberately
concealed year of passing of diploma
course in her application dated 24
February, 2000 and obtained employment
in
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation of India (ALIMCO) by giving
false information, thereby committed fraud
on the Corporation and willfully and
knowingly acted against the interest of the
Corporation.

Miss Neelu Dwivedi by her above
act exhibited lack of integrity and conduct
unbecoming an employee of Corporation
and thereby violating Rule 4 (1)(i), (iii) and
also Rule 5 (4), 5(5), 5(21) of Artificial
Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India,
Kanpur, Conduct, Discipline and Appeals
Rules. "
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10.(ib) At this stage, we may
observe that the above charge is not in
respect of submitting a forged or fabricated
certificate but is with regard to the validity
of the certificate.

10.(ic) Similarly, for having a
clear picture of Article II of the charges
contained in charge-sheet dated 13.03.2020
(supra), we are extracting paragraph nos. 2,
3, 4 and 5 from Annexure II relating to
Article II below:-

"2. Miss Neelu Dwivedi vide her
application, dated 24.2.2000 applied for
the post of Secretary to CMD, ALIMCO
and enclosed her curriculum vitae. In the
curriculum vitae against the column Work
Experience, she had mentioned (i) Worked
in Hotel Landmark as Front Office
Assistant (1996). The exact period has not
been mentioned. (ii) Worked in Shivgarh
Resorts Ltd. (a member of Suman Motels
Ltd) as a Regional Coordinator (19961998). The exact period has not been
mentioned i.e. date and month (iii)
Presently
working
with
Precitex
components Mfg Co (a Div of Lohia
Starlinger)
as
Secretary
to
General
Manager since August, 1999.

3. In the prescribed application
proforma of ALIMCO duly signed by Miss
Neelu Dwivedi on 1.5.2000, under column
17 experience, she has mentioned as under:

Nam
e
and
addr
ess
of
the
empl
oyer
Desi
gnati
on

Perio
d
From
to

Nat
ure
of
Wo
rk

B
as
ic
P
ay

T
o
t
a
l

Rea
son
s
for
lea
vin
g

Hote
l
Land
mark
(The
Mall
,
Kan
pur)

Front
Offic
e
Assis
tant

Jan
96 to
Dec
96

Cus
tom
er
Ser
vic
e

-

2
5
0
0
/
-

Wo
rki
ng
in
shif
t
Shiv
garh
Reso
rts
Ltd.
3rd
floor
Com
merc
e
Cent
re,
Chu
niga
nj

Regi
onal
Coordin
ator

Dec
96 to
Dec
98

Cus
tom
er
Ser
vic
e &
Co
ord
inat
ion
wit
h
all
the
bra
nch
es

-
3
2
0
0
/
-

Bet
ter
opp
ort
unit
y
Preci
tex
Com
pone
nts
Ltd.
Mall
ama
n
Cha
ubep
ur

Secre
tary
to
GM
Not
legib
le as
ink
put
on
the
writi
ng to
till
date

Cor
res
pon
din
g
wit
h
all
the
rec
ord
s,
cus
tom
ers,
2
8
0
0/
-

4
5
0
0
/
-
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
399
mai
ntai
nin
g
rec
ord
s,
arra
ngi
ng
in
hou
se
trai
nin
g,
all
the
wor
k
rela
tes
to
G
M
etc.

In the last page of the said
prescribed application proforma, she has
further mentioned "I solemnly declare that
the particulars furnished in this application
are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I clearly understand
that any mis-statement of facts contained
therein or willful concealment of any
material facts will render me liable to
appropriate action as may be decided by
the Company. This has been signed by her
on 1.5.2000.

4. Thus, it is seen that the details
of her experience as claimed by her at the
time of applying for the post of
Secretary to CMD was as under:-

(i) M/s. Landmark from January,
1996 to December, 1996 - 11 months
(experience certificate not produced by
showing inability to produce the same.

(ii)
Shivgarh
Resorts
from
5.12.1996 to 31.12.1998 - 2 years 1 month
(experience does not seems to be relevant
experience).

(iii) Precitex Components (Unit
of Lohia Starlinger) from August 1999 to
31.5.2000 - 6 months as per bio-data
submitted at the time of application,
experience
counted
till
the
date
of
advertisement i.e. 20.2.2000).

From the above, it is apparent
that she claimed 3 years and 6 months
experience in the job application which is
below the advertised experience of 5 years.
However, the prescribed experience was
relaxed with the approval of CMD,
ALIMCO to 4 years instead of 5 years for
those candidates having Diploma in
Secretarial Course. Miss Neelu Dwivedi
was not entitled for said relaxation in view
of the fact that she was not having Diploma
in Secretarial Practice. Even, if the
relaxation of one year experience is taken
into account/considered in favour of Miss
Neelu Dwivedi then also she was not
fulfilling requisite experience as she was in
possession of only 3 years and 6 months of
experience plus 1 year Diploma in
Secretarial Practice = 4 years and 6
months. Besides, she did not produce the
experience certificate of Hotel Landmark
which reduces the effective experience to 3
years and 6 months
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5.
In
order
to
verify
the
experience
certificate
of
Miss
Neelu
Dwivedi in respect of M/s. Precitex
Components, a letter No. DGM/01/AU
dated 8.9.2018 was addressed to Vice
President (HR), Lohia Corp Ltd., Lohia
Industrial Complex, Chaubepur, Kanpur by
DGM (QC) & VO and GM (P & C),
ALIMCO, Kanpur. Manager (HR), Lohia
Corp Ltd., Kanpur vide letter No. LCL :
PERS:CERT:2018
dated
9.9.2018
intimated/verified service certificate of
Miss Neelu Dwivedi and stated she has
worked from 20.12.1999 to 31.5.2000 as
Stenographer. Thus, it is evident that Miss
Neelu Dwivedi in her curriculum vitae
dated 24.2.2000 has mentioned false work
experience i.e. "presently working with
Precitex Components Mfg Co (a Div of
Lohia Starlinger) as Secretary to General
Manager since August, 1999" whereas she
was working there from 20.12.1999."

10.(id) At this stage, we may
observe that the above charge is not in
respect of submitting a forged or fabricated
certificate but is in respect of: (a) not
holding the prescribed experience; and (b)
giving incorrect information with regard to
work
experience
at
M/s
Precitex
Components in her CV. Interestingly, the
information with regard to work experience
at Precitex Components in the application
form submitted by the appellant on which
appointment was processed does not
disclose as to from which date she had
worked there. Noticeably, as per the
imputation, that column was blotched by
ink spill. Whether experience certificate
was annexed with the application or the
CV, the charge-sheet is silent. Thus, it can
be assumed that the charge has been
levelled on the basis of incorrect disclosure
in the CV. Whether the entry in the CV was
relied upon to provide her appointment is
not clear from the charge sheet. What is
important is that even if her CV (bio-data)
entry is taken as correct, she neither had
prescribed 5 years of experience nor did
she have 4 years' experience upto which,
according to the charge sheet, there was
relaxation.

10.(ii)
Charge-sheet
dated
13.03.2020 Reference No. GM(M)A30/ND/02 (hereinafter referred to as the
second charge-sheet), this charge-sheet
contains a single article of charge which is
to the effect that the appellant during the
years 2009 and 2011 while working as
Deputy Manager (P & A) in ALIMCO,
Kanpur had applied for the post of (i)
Deputy Registrar, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur on 28.8.2009 and (ii)
Deputy General Manager (Pers & Admn)
in National Seeds Corporation Limited on
02.09.2011 for outside job by giving false
and misleading information pertaining to
her qualifications as passed (i) B.Sc in the
year 1996 from S.N. Sen BVPG College,
Kanpur and (ii) shorthand one year course
from ITI, Kanpur in the year 1997, whereas
in her application for initial appointment in
ALIMCO for the post of Secretary to
CMD,
she
had
mentioned
she
has
done/passed both these full time regular
courses in the same year 1996. Thus, by
furnishing false information to prospective
employer, she committed fraud on public
with sole motive of self career progression
and personal gain.

10.(iia) At this stage, we may
observe that Annexure III to the second
charge sheet though gives a list of
documents by which the charge is to be
proved but does not mention about
submission of any certificate by the
appellant to show that she passed one year
course from ITI, Kanpur in the year 1997.
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
401
Thus, the charge is not of submitting a
forged
document
but
of
submitting
incorrect information in the application in
respect of the year in which the appellant
passed one year course from ITI, Kanpur.

10.(iii)
Charge-sheet
dated
01.06.2020 Reference No. GM(M)A30/ND/03 (hereinafter referred to as the
third charge-sheet), this charge-sheet
contains two articles of charge:

(a) Article 1 is to the effect that
the petitioner was transferred vide Office
Order No. 26/2018, dated 3.8.2018 to
APOC, Head Office, Artificial Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation
of
India,
Kanpur. In terms of clause 2 of the said
Office Order dated 03.8.2018, she was
directed to hand over all important files to
Shri M.S. Puri, Manager (P & A) before
getting relieved. In violation of said
instructions, she did not hand over key
Recruitment File No. AD 3F 01/2013
relating to recruitment of Officer (L & IR).

(b) Article 2 is to the effect that
during the year 2018 while functioning as
HOD of P & A Department, the petitioner
has
intentionally
and
deliberately
committed gross irregularities in the
recruitment of Quality Control Assistant
(Mechanical
&
Electronics)
by
not
resorting to double checking the contents of
Minutes of Screening Committee for the
said post in spite of clear instructions to do
so, with the result, the entire process of
recruitment and selection had to be
cancelled by the ALIMCO Management
resulting in loss of time, money and
reputation of the Corporation.

10.(iv)
Charge-sheet
dated
12.06.2020 Reference No. GM(M)A30/ND/04 (hereinafter referred to as the
fourth charge-sheet), this charge-sheet
contains solitary article of charge, which is
to the effect that while working as Manager
(P & A) in the Administrative Department
of the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing
Corporation and dealing with the file
relating to the recruitment process, during
the year 2013, for the post of Officer (P &
O) she intentionally did not recommend
name of one applicant Sh. Jeetendra Kumar
on the ground that the above applicant had
filed a legal case against the Corporation
which was pending in the High Court of
Karnataka, in spite of the fact that the name
of the above candidate was recommended
by duly constituted Scrutiny Committee for
inclusion in the selection process. Thus, the
petitioner
arbitrarily
and
knowingly
suppressed the name of Shri Jeetendra
Kumar
from
the
list
of
shortlisted
candidates and did not include his name
thereby denying him rightful opportunity
for appointment on the said post.

10.(v)
Charge-sheet
dated
13.06.2020 Reference No. GM(M)A30/ND/05 (hereinafter referred to as the
fifth
charge-sheet),
this
charge-sheet
contains two articles of charge:

(a) Article 1 is to the effect that
the petitioner during the period of August
to December 2019, during her posting at
APOC, was habitually absenting herself
from workplace and taking leave without
any prior permission or approval. Despite
written orders issued by the Competent
Authority, she remained absent from duty
on 114.5 days with irregular attendance
during the period from August 2018 to
December 2019 in violation of ALIMCO
Leave Rules read with Office Order No.
11/2016, dated 18.4.2016.
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) Article 2 is to the effect that
the petitioner during the year 2019 has
availed 30 days Earned Leave. In terms of
Clause
4(d)
of
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing Corporation Leave Rules,
every application for grant of Earned Leave
should be submitted at least seven days
before the commencement of the leave
where the leave asked for is less than 15
days. If the leave asked for is more than 15
days, the leave application should be
submitted
14
days
before
the
commencement
of
the
leave.
Any
relaxation
to
this
rule,
in
special
circumstances, may be done only with the
prior approval of CMD, ALIMCO.

It is alleged that in violation of
such rules, the petitioner availed Earned
Leave as follows:-

(i) 3.12.2018 to 06.12.2018

(ii) 14.01.2019 to 18.01.2019

(iii) 5.8.2019 to 06.08.2019

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE APPELLANT

11. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that out of the five
charge-sheets that were served upon the
appellant, charge-sheet dated 13.03.2020
(Reference No. GM(M)A-30/ND/01) was
in respect of furnishing certain information
in the year 2000 at the time of seeking
initial appointment and therefore, initiating
proceedings in respect thereof, after 20
years of service, amounts to persecution,
undue harassment and, on that very ground,
the said charge-sheet is liable to be quashed
at the threshold. It was submitted that the
said charge-sheet does not disclose that any
of the documents submitted at the time of
appointment were forged or false rather it
questions the validity of the eligibility
certificates even though the authority
concerned had verified those certificates. It
was argued that so long those certificates
stand uncanceled and are verifiable, the
employer has no jurisdiction to question the
validity of those certificates, that too, after
20 years of service. It was urged that from
the charge itself it appears the requirement
of having work experience was relaxable
and, therefore, once appointment was
offered by relaxing the work experience
requirement, the employer is estopped from
questioning the eligibility on that ground,
particularly, after 20 years of service. It
was submitted that while addressing the
prayer of the appellant to quash the said
charge-sheet, the learned Single Judge
failed to consider these vital aspects.
Hence, the order of the learned Single
Judge is liable to be set aside.

12. In respect of the second chargesheet dated 13.03.2020 (Reference No.
GM(M)A-30/ND/02) it was urged that the
charge levelled therein is not at all referable
to any kind of misconduct on the part of the
appellant in respect of her employment
with ALIMCO, inasmuch as the charge
levelled therein is in respect of certain
information provided by the appellant to a
prospective
employer
for
seeking
appointment under it. It has been urged that
by taking that information as a piece of
evidence to suggest that the petitioner had
not given correct information at the time of
her own appointment, the second chargesheet has been drawn separately, which is
totally misconceived as it just multiplies
the same charge levelled in the first chargesheet. It is, thus, urged that the second
charge-sheet being not referable to any
separate misconduct under the employment
of ALIMCO than what was already alleged
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
403
in the first, amounts to undue harassment
and, therefore, the second charge-sheet is
liable to be quashed. It is urged that the
learned Single Judge has failed to notice
this aspect of the matter.

13. It was next urged that the
remaining
three
charge-sheets
raise
frivolous minor issues just to harass the
appellant and the very fact that all the
charge-sheets were issued within a short
period of three months, during the course
of
the
lock-down,
and
the
inquiry
proceeded through virtual mode, it was
clear that the respondents were proceeding
against the appellant mala fide, with a perdetermined notion.

14. Lastly, it was urged that as the
first two charge-sheets are not at all
sustainable in law, and the misconduct
alleged in the other three charge-sheets is
not of a nature that may entail a major
punishment, the order of suspension is not
warranted and the same is liable to be
quashed. It was urged that since the learned
single judge has not properly addressed the
issues/ aspects mentioned above, the
impugned judgment of the learned single
judge is liable to be set aside and the writ
petition of the appellant deserves to be
allowed.

15. To support the above submissions,
on behalf of the appellant, following
decisions were cited:

(i) P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD.
T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636
wherein it was held that inordinate delay of
10 years in initiating departmental enquiry,
in absence of convincing explanation by
the
employer,
would
be
extremely
prejudicial
to
the
incumbent
and
therefore, the charge memo is liable to be
quashed.

(ii)
State
of
A.P.
vs.
N.
Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 wherein it
was observed that whether delay vitiates
disciplinary
proceedings
has
to
be
considered taking into account all relevant
facts and circumstances.

(iii) State of Punjab and others
Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570
wherein, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it
was observed that it is trite to say that such
disciplinary proceeding must be conducted
soon after the irregularities are committed
or soon after discovering the irregularities.
They cannot be initiated after lapse of
considerable time. Such delay would not be
fair to the delinquent officer and it also
makes the task of proving the charges
difficult and is thus, not also in the interest
of administration. But how long a delay is
too long always depends upon the facts of a
given case. Moreover, if such delay is
likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent
officer in defending himself, the enquiry
has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea
is raised, the court has to weigh the factors
appearing for and against the said plea and
take
a
decision
on
the
totality
of
circumstances.

(iv) UCO Bank and others Vs.
Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC
92 wherein a delay of 7 years in issuing
charge-sheet was considered fatal.

(v) Sarwan Singh Lamba and
others Vs. Union of India and others,
(1995) 4 SCC 546 wherein appointments
were not interfered with particularly when
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was no fraud and were of persons
duly qualified and eligible for the post.

(vi)
Sanatan
Gauda
Vs.
Berhampur University, 1990 (3) SCC 23
wherein, by applying the principle of
estoppel, upon finding that a candidate had
taken admission and had given examination
of Law Course, it was held that the
University could not deprive him of the
fruits of his result on the ground that the
student was ineligible for admission in the
law course.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENTS

16.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submitted that under Office
Memorandum dated 19.05.1993 action
could
be
taken
against
Government
Servants if, later, they are found ineligible
or unqualified for their initial recruitment.
It was urged that Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training),
upon consideration of decision of the
Supreme Court in District Collector,
Vijyanagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi, 1990 (4) SLR 237, has issued a
circular as follows:-

"The matter has been examined in
consultation with the Ministry of Law and
Justice and it has now been decided that
wherever it is found that a Government
Servant, who was not qualified or eligible in
terms of the recruitment rules etc., for initial
recruitment in service or had furnished false
information or produced a false certificate in
order to secure appointment, he should not
be retained in service. If he is a probationer
or a temporary Govt. servant, he should be
discharged or his services should be
terminated. If he has become a permanent
Govt. servant, an inquiry as prescribed in
Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be
held and if the charges are proved, the
Government servant should be removed or
dismissed from service. In no circumstances
should any other penalty be imposed."

17. By referring to the said circular,
the learned counsel for the respondents also
placed before us Rule 5(4) of the Rules,
1975 so as to demonstrate that "Misconduct"
includes
furnishing
false
information
regarding
name,
age,
father's
name,
qualification, ability or previous services or
any
other
matter
germane
to
the
employment at the time of employment or
during the course of employment.

18. It was urged that since chargesheet (i) and (ii) {referred to in paras 10.(i)
and 10(ii)} were in respect of furnishing
false information, no period of limitation
would apply for initiating departmental
inquiry and therefore, the prayer of the writ
petitioner to quash the departmental inquiry
at the threshold is not at all sustainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents further
urged that other three charge-sheets, namely,
charge-sheet (iii), (iv) and (v) {referred to in
paras 10.(iii), 10.(iv) and 10.(v)} are
referable to recent misconduct of the
petitioner and therefore, there is no
substance in the prayer of the petitioner. He
further submitted that the petitioner in her
writ petition had not made any specific
statement as to what prejudice would be
caused to her by the delay in drawing
disciplinary
proceeding
against
her
therefore, her plea to quash the chargesheets on the ground of delay is not at all
sustainable.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
placed
reliance
on
the
following decisions:
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
405

(i) District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society, Vizianagaram and another
Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC
655 wherein it was held that when an
advertisement
mentions
a
particular
qualification and an appointment is made in
disregard of the same, it is not a matter only
between the appointing authority and the
appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all
those who had similar or even better
qualifications
than
the
appointee
or
appointees but who had not applied for the
post because they did not possess the
qualifications
mentioned
in
the
advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on
public to appoint persons with inferior
qualifications in such circumstances unless it
is clearly stated that the qualifications are
relaxable. No court should be a party to the
perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.

(2) Ram Saran vs. IG of Police,
CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541. In that
case, the appointment was secured by
furnishing false birth certificate. By placing
reliance on GO No. 29 of 1993, the apex
court took the view that whenever it is found
that a government servant who was not
qualified or eligible in terms of the
recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in
service or had furnished false information or
produced a false certificate in order to secure
appointment should not be retained in service
if the charges are proved.

(3) Secretary, Ministry of Defence
and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha,
(2012) 11 SCC 565. In this case, the apex
court, after considering a number of
decisions, held that the law does not permit
quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner.
In case the delinquent employee has any
grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he
must raise the issue by filing a
representation and wait for the decision of the
disciplinary authority thereon. It was also
observed that proceedings are not liable to be
quashed on the grounds that the same had
been initiated at a belated stage or could not
be concluded in a reasonable period unless
the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent
employee. It was also held that in case the
charge-sheet
is
challenged
before
a
court/tribunal on the ground of delay in
initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay
in
concluding
the
proceedings,
the
court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet
after considering the gravity of the charge
and all relevant factors involved in the case
weighing all the facts both for and against the
delinquent employee and must reach the
conclusion which is just and proper in the
circumstances.

(4) Union of India and others vs.
Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 wherein
it was held that at the stage of framing of
charge it is beyond the scope of judicial
review of Central Administrative Tibunal to
examine the correctness of charges. It was
further held that writ of prohibition can be
issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is
made out.

(5) Union of India and another
v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12
SCC 28. In this case, it was held that,
ordinarily, a writ petition impugning a
show cause notice or charge-sheet is not
maintainable and that in some very rare and
exceptional cases, the High Court can
quash the charge-sheet or show cause
notice if it is found to be wholly without
jurisdiction or otherwise wholly illegal.

(6) E.P. Royappa Vs.