Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Joymalya Bagchi, K.Suresh Reddy, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
A. Nakshtramma - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20042 of 2018
Decided On : 09-08-2021
REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CANCELLATION OF SCHEDULED CASTE CERTIFICATE - RULE 20 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1991 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-employee was appointed as School Assistant under Scheduled Caste quota based on a fake Scheduled Caste Certificate. Upon discovery of the fraud, she was removed from service. She challenged the removal order before the Tribunal, which set aside the order and directed the petitioners to conduct an enquiry following Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. The petitioners issued a charge memo and received an explanation from the respondent-employee, who admitted that the Scheduled Caste Certificate was fake. The petitioners again removed the respondent-employee from service. The respondent-employee challenged this order before the Tribunal, which set it aside on the ground that the procedure under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules had not been followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent-employee could not continue to occupy the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates since her Scheduled Caste Certificate had been cancelled. The court also held that the respondent-employee had been given adequate opportunity to defend herself and that the principles of natural justice had been followed. The court further held that the respondent-employee could not revert to her earlier post from which she had resigned.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent-employee could continue to occupy the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates after her Scheduled Caste Certificate had been cancelled. 2. Whether the respondent-employee had been given adequate opportunity to defend herself. 3. Whether the respondent-employee could revert to her earlier post from which she had resigned.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. When an incumbent to a post does not possess basic qualifications for occupying the post, removal of such incumbent does not attract principles of natural justice. 2. Principles of natural justice cannot be considered in a straitjacket formula and has to be applied according to the facts of each case. 3. A respondent-employee who has resigned from a post cannot revert to that post after being removed from a different post for which she was not qualified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The court also held that there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
Order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Original Application No.887 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent-employee into service and conduct enquiry strictly following Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), is challenged in this Writ Petition.
2. Mr.K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent-employee was initially working in Mandal Parishad Elementary School T-Sadam, having been selected as Secondary Grade Teacher in DSC-2000 in BC-B category. While in service, the respondent-employee applied for the post of School Assistant under Scheduled Caste quota, was appointed as School Assistant vide proceedings in Rc.No.3421/A1/A3/2001/SA (Service) 45, dated 20.01.2002. In doing so, the respondent-employee had submitted a Scheduled Caste Certificate purportedly issued in her favour by Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi on the premise that she had married a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. Upon selection, she resigned from her earlier post and joined as School Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Vengalamma Cheruvu, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District on 23.01.2002. In the meantime, disputes cropped up between the respondent and her husband and on the complaint of the latter before Lok-Ayukta that the respondent-applicant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste Community, she was placed under suspension. Thereupon, by proceedings in Rc.No.8641/A3/2012, dated 08.03.2013, the respondent-employee was removed from service on the ground that the Caste Certificate obtained is a fraudulent one.
3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal/removal order, she approached the Tribunal in Original Application No.1753 of 2013 and the Tribunal, by order dated 22.02.2016, set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioners to conduct and conclude enquiry proceedings in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. Pursuant thereto, a charge memo was issued on 18.10.2016 inter alia alleging that she got appointed as School Assistant in Biological Science in DSC- 2001 on the strength of a bogus Scheduled Caste Certificate, even though she belongs to BC-B category. The respondent- employee submitted explanation to the charge memo on 14.11.2016 wherein she inter alia threw the blame of obtaining Scheduled Caste Certificate in her favour on her husband. However, she did not deny that the Scheduled Caste Certificate was a fake one.
4. It may be pertinent to mention here that the District Collector, Ananthapur had cancelled her Scheduled Caste Certificate vide proceedings in Rc.No.MC3/2948/2010 dated 16.12.2012 which came to be challenged in Appeal by the respondent-employee. Considering the aforesaid materials including the explanation of the respondent-employee, vide proceedings in Rc.No.8641/A3/2012 dated 17.01.2017, the respondent was again removed from service with immediate effect. This order was challenged by the respondent-employee before the Tribunal in Original Application No.887 of 2017. By impugned order dated 28.04.2017, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal on the ground that the respondent-employee had not been given liberty to examine and cross examine witnesses and the procedure contemplated under the CCA Rules had not been followed.
5. Mr.K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, submits that the appeal preferred by the respondent-employee against the order of the District Collector cancelling her Scheduled Caste Certificate had been dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government and as such order had become final.
6. Mr.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee, submits that as the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
