Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
The Eastern Power Distribution Company – Appellant
Versus
G. Satyanarayana S/o G.V. Venkaiah – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1268 of 2017
Decided On : 05-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950– Article 226 – Ungenuine certificates- Claim back wages - To quash Proceedings of first respondent by declaring same as arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondents to extend all service benefits to petitioner as a Junior Accounts Officer - It is alleged that, petitioner joined in service of State Electricity Board as Typist and by virtue of seniority, petitioner was promoted as L.D.C. after he got through Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers - In order to get promotion as Junior Accounts Officer, requisite qualification is graduation in Commerce or Accountancy High Grade Examination - Petitioner prosecuted B.Com course through a private study center and appeared for examination conducted by Andhra University - But, he did not receive Degree Certificate from University - Petitioner also appeared for B.Com examination conducted by Ranchi University through another Study Centre - Petitioner got the Provisional Certificate from Ranchi University he submitted same to department and he was promoted - Thereupon, respondents started enquiry with both Universities about genuineness of B.Com Degree certificate produced by petitioner and received replies that those certificates are not genuine - Whether recording any finding without framing charge is an irregularity.
Finding of the Court:
In present case, petitioner was dismissed from service on the illegal findings of Enquiry Officer vide dismissal order and same was set-aside by learned single Judge vide order in W.P. - Dismissal or removal of writ petitioner from service is only on account of illegality committed by Enquiry Officer in completing enquiry and recording findings thereto, which learned single Judge had set-aside vide order - When the petitioner was out of employment on account of illegalities committed by appellants herein, he is entitled to claim back wages, when he was not gainfully employed, apart from burden of proof that the delinquent was gainfully employed during the period of suspension, but failed to discharge the burden - Principle of no work – no pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by appellants herein - Learned single Judge rightly ordered all monetary benefits to petitioner, including his retiral benefits; thereby, order of learned single Judge does not warrant interference of this Court in the intra court appeal, as court find no merit in contention of respondents/appellants herein - Accordingly, point is answered against the appellants herein and in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
1. The Eastern Power Distribution Company filed this writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 16288 of 2004 dated 29.04.2016, whereunder, the learned single Judge set-aside the proceedings of the first appellant herein dated 31.08.2004, while directing to pay all the monetary benefits to the petitioner, as if he continued in service with effect from 12.04.2003 till the date of his retirement, including retiral benefits.
2. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner and the appellants herein were the respondents before the learned single Judge. They will hereinafter be referred as arrayed in W.P. No. 16288 of 2004 for the sake of convenience.
3. The writ petitioner - G. Satyanarayana filed the writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming writ of Certiorari to quash the Proceedings of the first respondent dated 31.8.2004 by declaring the same as arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to extend all service benefits to the petitioner as a Junior Accounts Officer.
4. It is alleged that, the petitioner joined in the service of the State Electricity Board as Typist in the year 1971 and by virtue of seniority, the petitioner was promoted as L.D.C. in the year 1992 after he got through Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part I. In order to get promotion as Junior Accounts Officer, the requisite qualification is graduation in Commerce or Accountancy High Grade Examination. The petitioner prosecuted B.Com course through a private study center during the years 1989-1991 and appeared for the examination conducted by Andhra University. But, he did not receive Degree Certificate from the University. The petitioner also appeared for B.Com examination conducted by Ranchi University through another Study Centre in February 1993 with Registered No. 30836. The petitioner got the Provisional Certificate from Ranchi University on 10.11.1993; he submitted the same to the department and he was promoted in the year 1996. In the year 2000 the petitioner submitted a copy of B.Com Degree certificate obtained from Andhra University requesting the respondent authorities to make appropriate entry in his Service Register. Thereupon, the respondents started enquiry with both Universities about the genuineness of the B.Com Degree certificate produced by the petitioner and received replies that those certificates are not genuine.
5. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 12.04.2003 on the ground that he is guilty of misconduct of producing bogus degree certificates for gaining official favour. The petitioner questioned the same before the High Court in W.P. No. 7743 of 2003 challenging the orders dated 12.04.2003 and the order was suspended vide WAMP No. 10106 of 2003 on the ground that the second respondent therein is not the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension. The order was made absolute and W.P. No. 7743 of 2003 was allowed on 31.10.2003 after hearing both the counsel. Thereafter, the respondents filed W.A. No. 838 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench also.
6. The second respondent appointed the Divisional Engineer (Enquiries) as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged misconduct against the petitioner and served a memo dated 22.08.2003. The only charge framed against the petitioner is that, the petitioner obtained employment by obtaining false certificates of two universities and hence the act of the petitioner, securing employment by producing fake certificates amounts to cheating the employer. The petitioner submitted his explanation requesting for oral enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry and only o
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
