JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records relating to Order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the second respondent and the award dated 29.06.2016 (communicated on 11.01.2017) passed by the third respondent Tribunal and to quash the same and allow the claim petition in I.D.No.84 of 2015 as prayed for.

1. The petitioner herein, while serving as a Messenger in the respondent Bank, was served with a Charge Memo dated 22.03.2013 stating that she had submitted a bogus school certificate, as if she had passed VIII Std in April 1975, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted and she was dismissed from her services on 28.04.2013. Challenging the dismissal order, she had preferred a dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.84 of 2015 and by an award dated 29.06.2016, her claim petition was dismissed. The said award is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is not in dispute that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Messenger under the Bank Regulations is a pass in VIII Std. The only charge against the petitioner is that the school certificate produced by her is bogus. The main reason for coming to such a conclusion that the petitioner’s school certificate is a bogus one is based on Ex.M.17, which is a letter from the Headmaster of Poolankurichi Elementary School, Karaikudi dated 11.01.2013. In the dismissal order dated 28.04.2014, the disciplinary authority had held that since the charges against the petitioner was proved and that she had knowingly made false statement in connection with her employment in the Bank, the same is regarded as a gross misconduct under the regulations and therefore imposed the major punishment of dismissal from services without notice.

4. The Labour Court had also placed reliance on Ex.M.17 and held that since it is stated by the Headmaster that no one with the name of “Anbukili” had studied in the school with the admission No.336 during the period from 10.06.1968 to 01.06.1995 and also that the petitioner did not put-forth her case that the document was genuine, upheld the dismissal order. Since the entire case revolves around Ex.M.17, which is the letter of the Headmaster, the same is hereby extracted:-

5. The contents of the aforesaid letter of the Headmaster is that, as per the records of the Poolankurichi Elementary School, there are no records in connection with Admission No.336 in the name of Anbukili between 10.06.1968 and 01.06.1975. Ex.M.17, letter was issued by the concerned Headmaster based on a requisition made by the respondent Bank for ascertaining the bona-fides of Admission No.336 of the petitioner. The second respondent, while passing the dismissal order, as well as the Labour Court while considering the claim petition, has misconstrued Ex.M.17 totally. While passing the dismissal order, the disciplinary authority had not dealt with the charges against the petitioner at all. But had only placed reliance on the Ex.M.17 and passed the dismissal order.

6. The Labour Court in para 9 of its award dated 29.06.2016 had stated as follows:-

“In Ex.M.17, the Headmaster has informed that no one with the name of Anbukiliwith admission No.336 had studied in this school during period from 10.06.1968 to 01.06.1975”.

Contrary to such observation, Ex.M.17 reveals that the Headmaster has certified that there was no records available in their school in connection with the petitioner’s education between 10.06.1968 and 01.06.1975. When compared to the contents of Ex.M.17, the finding of the Labour Court in this regard is totally misconstrued. “Non availability of the records” pertains to the petitioner’s education from 10.06.1968 to 01.06.1975, is totally different from the findings that “the petitioner had not studied in the school during the relevant period”. Apart from Ex.M.17, there were no ot