Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others. - Appellants
Versus
G.J. Lillistone, S/o Late Sri Joseph, Worked as Lineman - Respondent
W.A.No.80 OF 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellants : Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
For the Respondent: Mr. S.A. Razak

Point of law: disciplinary authority and appellate authority passed the order of dismissal based upon such perverse enquiry report. Further, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, which was based on perverse findings of the enquiry officer. Apart from that, the respondents ought to have examined the case of the petitioner as to whether the qualification, for which the petitioner is alleged to have produced a fake certificate, is relevant qualification for the purpose of securing employment. Since the respondents have not considered the above aspects, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside

Headnote:
Service Laws – False Educational Certificate – Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. allowing the writ petition and setting aside the proceedings and Memo issued by the 3rd respondent and the order of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority, with all consequential benefits
Finding of court: From the transfer certificate dated 28.05.2004 which the petitioner produced, it appears that it was issued by ZillaParishad High School, Gannavaram (Boys). – In the said certificate, name of the parent or guardian was shown as Yesob and the date of birth was recorded as 14.3.1951. – The class in which the pupil was reading at the time of leaving was shown as VIIth class. – There is contradiction in the statement so attributed to the petitioner and the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer. It was recorded that the petitioner had stated that he studied upto 7th class at Z.P. High School and later studied at Gandhiji Municipal Secondary School but he had submitted a copy of transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, A.P.H. School (Boys). – In the conclusion, it was recorded that a certificate issued by the Head Master, Z.P.H School (Boys), Gannavaram, was submitted. – Case of the petitioner, as it appears from the material on record, is that he studied upto7th class at Z.P. High School, Gannavaram and 8thclass at Gandhiji Municipal Higher Secondary School, Vijayawada and he discontinued studies – Document based on which charge was framed was not even brought on record. – The authorities solely relied on a letter of the District Educational Officer, Machilipatnam wherein it was stated that TC in respect of G.L. Lilliston is not genuine one as per the letter of the Deputy Educational Officer Enquiry Officer took it for granted that the transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, Gandhiji Municipal Higher Secondary School, Vijayawada showed that the petitioner had passed 9th class. – The finding is wholly perverse as in the absence of the document stated to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of entry into service, the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer cannot stand scrutiny for a moment. – There is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner in connection with the production of false educational certificate at the time of his entry into service. – Court have no hesitation to hold that the charge against the petitioner was not proved as the department had even failed to produce by way of evidence the educational certificate alleged to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of his entry into service, let alone proving such certificate to be a false certificate by producing acceptable evidence as would be required in a departmental proceeding to establish a charge. – In that view of the matter, court find no merit in this appeal.
Result: Writ Appeal Dismissed

JUDGMENT :

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

1. Heard Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.A. Razak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 23.11.2018 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1225 of 2007 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the proceedings dated 14.03.2005 and Memo dated 06.05.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent and the order of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority, dated 16.12.2005, with all consequential benefits.

3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed as Non-Muster Roll (NMR) in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) during the year 1971 and subsequently, he was absorbed as helper in the year 1979. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 09.05.1982 and as Lineman, on 21.06.1985. A complaint was made in the year 1999 against the writ petitioner for allegedly producing a false educational certificate at the time of his employment and after conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service.

4. Challenging the aforesaid notice, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17448 of 1999. This Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition as it was against the show cause notice only. However, it was observed that it would be open to the respondents therein to consider all the contentions advanced by the writ petitioner.

5. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 24.01.2002, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred against the said proceedings was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.12520 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 22.10.2002 allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the same officer acted as Preliminary Enquiry Officer, witness at the enquiry, Disciplinary Authority and had imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner and had set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.01.2002, granting liberty to the appellants to conduct a de novo enquiry, if so desired.

6. Subsequent thereto, a de novo enquiry was conducted and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and basing on the same, a notice dated 05.01.2005 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he shall not be dismissed from service and requiring him to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days.

7. Challenging the notice dated 05.01.2005, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.5676 of 2005. By an order dated 23.03.2005, this Court disposed of W.P.No.5676 of 2005 granting two weeks’ time to the petitioner to submit additional explanation along with other relevant material, with a direction to the respondents (appellants herein) to consider the same in accordance with law. It was noted that the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 24.01.2005 and that no order had been passed by the respondents.

8. However, it appears that an order of dismissal dated 14.03.2005 was already passed before disposal of the writ petition and it is apparent that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted additional explanation, which was received in the Division Office on 11.04.2005.

9. In view of the order dated 23.03.2005 in W.P.No.5676 of 2005, the additional explanation was considered and thereafter, the order of dismissal dated 14.03.2005 was confirmed by order dated 06.05.2005. The order dated 06.05.2005 was put to challenge in W.P.No.14614 of 2005. This Court, by order dated 07.07.2005, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner. After dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 16.12.2005, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the orders as noticed supra.

10. The learned single Judge observed that the post in whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document