SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 1767

IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
B. Subramaniyan – Appellant
Versus
Syndicate of Annamalai University, Rep. By its Chairman, Chidambaram, Cuddalore Dist & Others – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 19883 of 2014 & Cont. Petition (MD) No. 17 of 2015
Decided On : 17-04-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Thirumurthy for M/s. Victory Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates, V. Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

The cancellation of employment based on fraudulent procurement does not require the same formal enquiry as in cases of removal or dismissal, and fraud vitiates every solemn act.

Headnote:

Forgery - Employment - Annamalai University Act, 1928 (TN Act 1 of 1929), Annamalai University Act, 2013 (TN Act 20 of 2013) - Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India - Natural Justice

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of his appointment as Assistant Professor in History at Annamalai University due to the alleged forgery of his SSLC certificate. The petitioner claimed innocence and submitted explanations, but the University found the certificate to be fake and cancelled his appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the cancellation of the appointment was not a removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, as it was based on the fraudulent procurement of employment. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement and dismissed the writ petition with costs.

Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the appointment based on the fraudulent procurement of employment did not require a formal enquiry as in cases of removal or dismissal. The court also emphasized that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that the teaching profession should not tolerate fraud, especially when it poses a threat to society.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs. The court also stated that the respondents were free to pursue criminal action against the petitioner.

Judgment :-

1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the University Order No.964/2014 (C) dated 19.11.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent based on the Resolution No.73 dated 07.11.2014 by the 1st respondent, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as the Assistant Professor in History in the University by the appointment order No.678/2008(C) dated 11.11.2008 without conducting any enquiry and even before the cancellation of his SSLC certificate by the 3rd respondent and also for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 19.11.2014 with back wages continuity of service and grant all other attended benefits.

2. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 19.12.2014, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order, which reads as follows:

“It appears that no enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner. Therefore, sending him unceremoniously, without holding enquiry and without giving him any opportunity whatsoever, prima facie may not suit in line with equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to continue until further orders.” Since the said interim order has not been complied with, the petitioner has filed the Contempt Petition, seeking to punish the respondents/respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition for disobedience of the order passed by this Court (supra) . Hence, both the writ petition and the contempt petition were clubbed together for hearing and final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner appeared for the SSLC examination held in March, 1996 as a private candidate and the 3rd respondent issued him the Hall Ticket bearing Reg.No.112922, permitting him to write the SSLC examination at S.N.Govt.Hr.Sec.School, Virudhunagar. He secured 250 marks out 500 in the SSLC examination and his Secondary School Leaving Certificate bearing Certificate S.No.AA3789137 (TMR Code No.A106614 dated 17.06.1996) was sent by the 3rd respondent to him on 16.09.1996 ii) It is submitted by the petitioner that thereafter, he continued his education at Gandhiniketan Higher Secondary School, T. Kallupatti and passed Higher Secondary Course Examination in March, 1998, by securing 894 marks out of 1200. Subsequently, he came out successful in B.A. History (III Class), M.A. History (II Class) at Annamalai University and M.Phil. History (I Class) through Distance Education at Alagappa University, Karaikudi. Apart from the above, he also completed Hindi Courses viz. , Praveshika Examination (equivalent to SSLC), Rashtrabhasha Visharad (equivalent to Inter) and Rashtrabhasha Praveen (equivalent to B.A.) out of his own interest. iii) It is also submitted by the petitioner that he was temporarily appointed as Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in History wing of the Directorate of Distance Education of Annamalai University carrying the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with admissible allowances vide Appointment Order No.678 dated 11.11.2008 by the 2nd respondent. Due to his unblemished, untainted, sincere and hard work, his service was regularized with effect from 16.06.2011 in the pay bank of Rs.15,600-39,100 vide University Order No.568/2012 (C) dated 20.04.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and that he was placed on probation. iv) In the meantime, on 19.09.2014, the 2nd respondent directed him to produce all his original educational certificates immediately, pursuant to which, he submitted about 16 original certificates on the very same day. Subsequently, on the night of the said date viz. , 19.09.2014, he was intimated that he produced a forged SSLC certificate and as per the record of the Directorate of Government Examinations, one Mr. T. Senthilkumar with Date of Birth 16.07.1982 has been issued such SSL certificate bearing Regn.No.112922/Mar, 1996, Certificate Sl.No.AA3789137 and TMR Code No.A106614 (total marks-250). Since the petitioner



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top