HON'BLE DR K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The applicant is aggrieved by his removal from service by a Memorandum No.V.VO/A/FR/43/96 dated 26.11.1996 which was apparently duly confirmed in appeal vide order dated 6.5.1998. The applicant would claim that thereafter in 2002 or so he had filed a revision but the respondents denies being in receipt of such revision.
2. The facts are as follows: The applicant, claiming to be the son of Karuppan who passed away on 1.10.1980 had applied through his mother Ramakkal and on the basis of such representation, apparently, the Railways had asked Padmanabhan who is the applicant herein to submit application for appointment if he feels that he is entitled to it. It would appear that thereupon the applicant submitted a representation on 7.10.1993 seeking appointment on compassionate ground along with a photo copy of educational certificate issued from Hindu Nadar's Management Higher Elementary High School, Sivagiri which will reveal that the applicant has passed 7th standard in 1980. It was also revealed that at that time of Shri Karuppan i.e in 1980, Padmanabhan was aged 21 years. It would appear that these aspects were not apparently taken into account at that time by the concerned authorities and the Railways had recommended his case for appointment vide letter No.V/Z.735/620 on 29.11.1993. It would appear that on 20.5.1994, the Chief Personnel Officer had communicated the approval of the competent authority to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground after relaxing the age limit as a special case vide order dated 20.5.1994. The twin points of his being aged 21 at the time of demise of Shri Karuppan and that in 1994 it was found necessary to relax the age limit for appointment of the applicant are points of concern in this matter.
3. It would appear that a complaint was received by the Railway authorities relating to forging of documentation produced by the applicant. Thereupon a vigilance enquiry was ordered into the matter and the Head Master of the Hindu Nadar's Management Higher Elementary High School, Sivagiri was approached for confirmation of the educational certificate produced by the applicant. They had informed that in fact the applicant was not a student of the institution and the documents produced by the applicant at that point can only be a false one and made out of forgery.
4. Therefore, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Railway authorities and it was revealed that in fact Shri Padmanabhan had studied in Government Tamil High Schoo, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram. Examination of the school records reveal that in fact the applicant's father is not Karuppan as claimed in his application but one Shri Mookan. Thus the applicant secured an employment under forgery and misrepresentation. Further inquiry as was made would reveal that Smt Ramakkal, mother of the applicant is also known as Ramammal and she is in fact the wife of Shri Mookan who was working at Madurai Division and on the death of Shri Mookan, she was drawing family pension as a beneficiary. This pension is drawn on PPO No.SR 6066 from Sub Treasury, near Secretariat, Trivandrum. At the same time she had also claimed to be the wife of Shri Karuppan and drawn the settlement dues in favour of Shri Karuppan producing a succession certificate through a court of law. It would appear that for the purpose of securing succession certificate, she had in fact relied on a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Trivandrum which was issued after an enquiry. After an enquiry The Tahsildar, Trivandrum Taluk Office declared the legal heirs of late Karuppan as under:
1. K. Ramakkal, wife 50 years.
2. K Marikannu, son, 18 years.
3. K Lakshmi, daughter, 14 years.
4. K. Ganesan, son, 12 years.
It may be noted that this was done soon after the death of Shri Karuppan by Smt Ramakkal herself. This reveal that at the time of demise of Shri Karuppan the applicant was aged 21 years and therefore had he been the son of Karuppan he was found place above Manikannu, another son/daughter who was at that time 18 years and in all probability, he would have been proposed for an alternative compassionate appointment at that time itself. Vide Annexure A-9, it appears that Smt Ramakkal, the mother of the applicant was examined during the enquiry against the applicant as DW-1. She would state that she was initially married to Shri Mookan who was a Fitter in Railways and was living with him till the age of about 35 to 38. Then she dwelled with Shri Karuppan and she would say she had four children was born through Karuppan viz, two sons and two daughters and indicated that Padmanabhan was one among them on 13.9.1996. But Padmanabhan was apparently not in the list of her children when she applied for succession certificate as the legal heir of Karuppan soon after 1.10.1980. She would also say that Padmanabhan studied at Chalai School, Trivandrum. Therefore, the school certificate produced by Padmanabhan, the applicant to the effect that he studied at Hindu Nadar's Management Higher Elementary High School, Sivagiri is obviously a forged one. She would say that Shri Mookan admitted Shri Padmanabhan into the school and his father's name is shown as Shri Mookan. It has come out during his testimony that in fact Karuppan had another wife also but had not legally divorced from him but she claimed that this wife had deserted him. She would claim and say that she had first married Mookan and then Karuppan. Even though she had obtained settlement dues on behalf of Karuppan claimed to be his wife, after the death of Mookan she had also claimed and obtaining benefits of family pension being the wife of Mookan as well. Her daughter Manikannu had obtained an employment in the Railways based on a representation which apparently made by Smt Ramakkal and was placed for consideration before the authorities on 27.2.1981 and following which Marikannu was granted compassionate appointment by the Railways. But during the enquiry, she would retract from it and would state that she had not sought for any employment for her daughter and that she had not represented it either. Therefore, the answers of Ramakkal is indicative of the fact that her faculties are in proper order even though she is 82 years old, apparently at that time. She would also state that at the time of Karuppan's demise the legal hirers of Karuppan was alive but then she had no hesitation to apply for the settlement dues of Karuppan and obtained it without the juncture of the applicant whom she later claims her son through Karuppan. She would say Mookan had married her according to the tradition prevailing in the community but Shri Karuppan was only taking care of her, and therefore, deemed to be her husband. In this conspectus, her answer that her son was studying at Chalai School is pertinent and persuasive since Mookan was shown as this father.
5. Even otherwise also the laws relating to the Hindu Succession and Marriage are to the effect that during the pendency of a legal marriage, the children born are apparently legitimate children born through the existing marriage. At this point of time, we will not be able to say whether Mookan or Karuppan is the biological father of the applicant. But the fact that Mookan admitted the applicant to school declaring himself to be the father of the applicant. There is no evidence to point out other than the version of the applicant and his mother that Karuppan is indeed the father of the applicant. The applicant was aged 21 at the time of Karuppan's demise but there was no mention anywhere in the gazetted notification nor in the succession certificate issued by the court of law to permit him as a legal heir to Karuppan and the late wisdom dawn on the applicant to apply for compassionate appointment in 1993 are negative factors. The applicant relies on the decision taken by the Divisional Officer, Trivandrum to indicate that only after all possible enquiries the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds. It is doubtlessly clear that they may have been instances of favouritism and nepotism and in fact wrong doing by concerned officials at that time who had even relaxed the age limit and recommended the appointment lof the applicant. This is a matter for Railways to consider and to take appropriate decision at appropriate levels. But that cannot clothe the applicant with any special right as it is clearly found that once he produced false educational certificate suppressing his real educational certificate which would have disclosed that he is not at least recordically the son of Karuppan. His mother's testimony also do not help it and in fact on closer inspection, it is against him.
6. The applicant would claim that the Government notification dated 11.10.1980 excluding the applicant as the son of Karuppan was modified subsequently by a gazette notification dated 26.7.2005 including the applicant also as one of the sons of late Karuppan. We do not know what sort of an enquiry was conducted by the concerned village officer before issuing such a certificate. Once a civil court had issued a succession certificate it cannot be modified and set aside other than through a proper judicial process in a civil court. The Village Officer is not competent to over ride the succession certificate issued by a competent court of law. Moreover, the gazette notification only indicate that anyone who has an objection to such notification can come forward and expose the claim made by the applicant. Other than that the clarification of Village Officer have no merit and cannot be relied upon. It is to be noted in this connection that as the claim of the Railways that Marikannu had obtained employment through the juncture of Mookan, an opportunity could be availed by applicant only through the agency of Karuppan. That must be the reason for late arrival of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment 13 years after the death of his alleged father.
7. Following the orders issued by this Tribunal earlier proper opportunities seems to have been accorded to the applicant. Evidence was taken in the presence of the applicant and he was removed from service by competent authority. The applicant would claim that since compassionate appointment can be finally approved only by the General Manager or by his delegated authorities, he can only be removed by the General Manger and not anybody below him. He is a Group'D' employee and after having gone through the records, we find that person who had appointed him had removed him from service and therefore, there is no lacunae in his removal. He had appealed against the decision and in 1998 appeal had also gone against him. After having issued the appellate order in 1998 applicant would claim that he had suffered partial paralysis and therefore was prevented from filing a revision at the appropriate time and therefore he could file a revision only in 2002. The respondents, however, denied any such revision. The applicant had also filed an application for condonation of delay computing that there is only a delay of 1796 days on the ground that he had subtracted one year from date of submission of his revision petition in 2002. Railways would claim that there is a delay of more than 11 years, since they have no such revision. Even after he had submitted any revision by the applicant as claimed by him but not corroborated by any proper evidence, the delay is much more than can be legitimately condoned.
8. But we have examined the matter in great detail since the livelihood and also the life is a constitutional mandate and therefore judicial authorities are bound to anxiously consider these issues on merit also in order to upheld the constitutional mandate. We have examined this matter with great anxiety and have found that in law and in practice, applicant cannot be considered as the son of Karuppan, in the circumstances of the case. He had evidently produced a forged school certificate even though one may wonder as to how Railway authorities could recommend his case after a lapse of 13 years for compassionate appointment is a moot point. We leave it to the Railway authorities to take proper action against the concerned officers at that point of time. But the claim of the applicant lacks both merit and legal admissibility as it is barred by unconscionable delay and therefore, the O.A is dismissed on cumulative ground. In the circumstances of the case we ought to have imposed heavy penalty on the applicant but we are not doing so as there is an equitable lacunae on Railways also in selecting him in the first place and granting him relaxation of age at the time of selection and in the other circumstances of the case revealed through pleadings and records. We are also influenced by the statement of the applicant that he had been paralysed and partially incapacitated. Therefore there shall not be any order as to costs.