Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari and Nyapathy Vijay, JJ.
G. Venkata Naga Maruthi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.4581 of 2018
Decided On : 23-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to appointment based on alleged fake certificate. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. details of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. legal implications of issuing false medical certificates (Para 14) |
| 4. arguments regarding validity of submitted certificate. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. consequences of submitting fraudulent documents in appointments. (Para 30 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. implications of producing a fake certificate and trust. (Para 36 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. final decision and implications of the judgment. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J :
Heard Sri Ch. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through virtual mode and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner-G. Venkata Naga Maruthi, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short 'the Tribunal') in OA Nos.6910 of 2014 and 1980 of 2015.
3. The petitioner applied for the post of School Assistant (English) on 12.03.2012 pursuant to the Teachers recruitment notification 'DSC-2012'. She applied as a physically handicapped person, mentioning in the application form 'Hearing Handicapped, Percentage : (>70%)'. She appeared at the written test. She was selected. She attended the office of the District Educational Officer on 03.12.2012, for verification of certificates. By the proceedings in Rc.No.9103/A1/2012, dated 28.12.2012, she was appointed as School Assistant (English) and was given posting in ZPHS, P.N. Varam, Veligandla, where she joined on 29.12.2012.
4. One D. Narayana who had also participated in the selection process, made a representation/complaint that the petitioner had produced bogus medical certificate of hearing impaired from Government ENT Hospital, Koti for obtaining appointment order. The District Educational Officer, Ongole vide letter dated 10.03.2014 requested the Superintendent, Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad to issue genuineness on medical PHC(HI) certificate of the petitioner dated 06.12.2012. In turn, the Superintendent of Government ENT Hospital vide letter dated 26.03.2014 submitted that the original records pertaining to the year 2012 were with Police of Central Crime Station for investigation purpose and therefore, he was unable to give genuineness report on the said PHC(HI) certificate. It was further informed that if necessary, the petitioner be deputed for re-assessment, for issuing a re-assessment certificate. The District Educational Officer, vide proceedings dated 23.05.2014 directed the Deputy Educational Officer and the petitioner to report before the Superintendent, Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad on 26.05.2014 for re-assessment. The petitioner did not attend. She made representation dated 29.05.2014 citing ill-health and asking for copy of the complaint. Again vide proceedings dated 09.06.2014, the petitioner was finally directed to appear in Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad on 16.06.2014 for re-assessment, failing which necessary action shall be taken against her as per A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991. She submitted representation dated 14.06.2014 stating that she was not shown as having been appointed under Hearing Impaired (HI) category and she was not physically handicapped person with HI. She did not appear before the Government ENT Hospital.
5. The District Educational Officer, Prakasam vide proceedings in Rc.No.1107/A1/2014, dated 15.07.2014 initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The following two Articles of Charges were framed against her. She was served with charge memo.
The use of fraudulent documentation for securing employment constitutes grave misconduct, warranting dismissal rather than mere discharge.
The dismissal of an employee for alleged misconduct must be substantiated by clear evidence; failure to prove the charge renders the dismissal arbitrary and unjust.
Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitio....
Once a disability certificate is accepted for employment, it cannot be questioned later based solely on administrative errors, unless fraud is proven.
The court affirmed the importance of valid disability certificates and the necessity of adhering to established benchmarks for disability in employment decisions.
A fraudulent document is non est from the beginning and cannot be countenanced in law. A party to a litigation cannot approbate and reprobate from his stand taken before a quasi-judicial authority to....
Employment termination due to fraudulent certification requires strict adherence to prescribed regulations, prioritizing lawful procedures even post long service. Fraud undermines legitimacy, mandati....
Adherence to specified deadlines and requirements outlined in the advertisement is crucial for the validity of caste certificates and the selection process.
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
