Jammu: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently upheld the termination of a judicial officer who was dismissed from service in 2021 for securing his appointment on the basis of a fabricated Reserved Backward Area (RBA) certificate. [Mohammad Yousuf Allie V/s High Court of JK Th. Registrar General & Anr.]
The judicial officer, Mohammad Yousuf Allie (petitioner), was terminated from service by the government in 2021 on the recommendation of the full court of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in 2021.
In an judgment passed last week, a division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Mohan Lal refused to interfere with the full court’s findings.
The petitioner was selected as a munsiff judge in 2000. However, his selection was challenged in two separate writ petitions in 1999 and 2000. These petitions alleged that the judicial officer had secured his appointment on the basis of a fake RBA certificate, which is similar to a caste certificate.
A single-judge of the High Court eventually ordered an interim investigation by the High Court’s Registrar Vigilance, which concluded that the certificate was fabricated.
On appeal, a division bench directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a fresh investigation into the matter.
A report came to be filed in January 2018, which also raised doubts about the genuineness of the RBA certificate. The petitioner’s counsel claimed that he was not provided with a copy of this report.
Thereafter, a second report was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which also concluded that the RBA certificate was fabricated.
The petitioner, thereafter, sought a review of the matter. Consequently, the Divisional Commissioner delegated the task of reviewing the case to a Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner concluded that the RBA certificate was valid in his report submitted in July 2018.
Meanwhile, however, the petitioner was suspended by the High Court’s Administrative Committee. Ultimately, in 2021, a Full Court decided to terminate the petitioner’s services. This decision was implemented by the government in the same year.
He then moved the Court on the judicial side against the decision.
The petitioner pointed out that the full court had failed to consider the third report prepared by a Deputy Commissioner in July 2018, which had concluded that the RBA certificate was valid.
However, the division bench noted that the July 2018 report was not prepared by a competent authority.
“We are of the opinion that there was no error either in law or on facts of the Full Court relying only upon the reports dated 12.01.2018 and 30.01.2018 as they were the only reports valid in the eyes of law before the Full Court as the report of 07.07.2018 passed in review by the Deputy Commissioner was non-est in the eyes of law, the same being violative of Rule 32 of SRO 126 of 1994,” the Court held.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s entry into service was through fraudulent means.
Consequently, depriving petitioner of further departmental inquiry did not violate Article 311 of the Constitution (dealing with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State), as also upheld by the Supreme Court, the High Court said.