Dismissed

D.Ramanjaneyulu,Ananthapur v. S.C.R,Gm,Sec'Bad,and 5

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2024WP/17986/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a petitioner from service for securing appointment via a bogus Scheduled Tribe certificate. The court held that there was no violation of natural justice and maintained the penalty, relying on precedents denying equitable relief to those who entered service through fraud.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, the penalty of dismissal was affirmed, and the tribunal's order was upheld.

D.Ramanjaneyulu,Ananthapur Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶2

+ WRIT PETITION NO: 17986/2012

% 19.07.2024

Between:

...APPELLANT(S)

D. Ramanjaneyulu

AND

...RESPONDENT(S)

South Central Railway & others

¶10

Counsel for the Appellant(S): I.Venkata Prasad

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents: M. Srinivas

¶12

< Gist :

¶13

Head Note:

¶14

? Cases Referred:

¶15

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 977

¶16

2 2019 SCC OnLine All 4254

¶17

3 2004 (2) SCC 105

¶18

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶19

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO: 17986/2012

¶21

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 19.07.2024

¶22

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶26

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes/No of the Judgment?

¶27

___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶28

________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J

¶29

APHC010300192012

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

[3470]

¶33

FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 17986/2012

¶38

Between:

¶39

D.ramanjaneyulu,ananthapur

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

S C R Gm Secbad 5 and Others

¶43

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶45

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶47

1.MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶48

2.VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S

¶49

¶50

The Court made the following:

¶51

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶52

W.P.No.17986 of 2012

¶53

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶54

Heard Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Central Government counsel for the respondents.

¶55

The petitioner filed O.A.No.1525 of 2003 challenging the order of dismissal dated 21.06.2002, as also the order dated 19.05.2003 confirming the punishment of dismissal, with the further relief to reinstate the petitioner into service from 21.06.2002 with back wages.

¶56

The Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘CAT’) dismissed the OA by an order dated 08.09.2004. Challenging this order of Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the OA.

¶58

Learned counsel for Central Government submits that the order of dismissal was passed after holding due enquiry. In the enquiry proceedings,

¶59

the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing. The enquiry officer recorded the finding that the Scheduled Tribe certificate, based upon which

¶60

the petitioner obtained employment, was bogus certificate. The same was also cancelled by the District Collector. The report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner against which, he filed representation and considering the same the penalty of dismissal was imposed. He submits that the order does not suffer from any illegality.

¶61

We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

¶62

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner obtained the appointment as Diesel cleaner, based on the Scheduled Tribe certificate dated 29.03.1983 issued by the Tahsildar. While the petitioner was working as HSK Grade II, on promotion, he was served with the Charge memo dated 02.02.2001 that he had given wrong declaration and produced bogus certificate. The petitioner submitted explanation on 05.03.2001. The Enquiry officer submitted report to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was afforded opportunity against the enquiry officer report. He filed representation dated 23.01.2002. The penalty of dismissal dated 21.06.2002 was imposed which order was affirmed by the appellate authority.

¶63

The petitioner’s certificate of Scheduled Tribe was cancelled by the District Collector on 07.10.2000. The verification was made by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur. It was found that the petitioner did not belong to Yanadi Community (ST) but he belonged to Sethi Balija Community (OC). Before cancellation of the certificate by the

¶64

District Collector, the petitioner was afforded opportunity by the District level scrutiny committee, Anantapur to attend the enquiry and produce copies of the study certificates from Class-I to Class-X along with other relevant documents for verification before 30.06.2000. But the petitioner did not produce the required documents. The petitioner was also asked to attend for enquiry on 22.08.2000 before the District Level Scrutiny Committee and on different dates but inspite of notice served through registered post as well, he did not attend the enquiry. Again, thereafter, inspite of the final notice served through registered post on 05.09.2002 the petitioner did not avail opportunity of hearing before Scrutiny Committee. The Tribunal has mentioned all these facts in its judgment in consideration of the order/report of the District Collector, Anantapur District.

¶65

In Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das¹ , the first respondent therein joined the service of the appellant as a Junior Assistant against the post reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled caste and had submitted a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bhubaneswar. Later on that cast certificate was cancelled under Rule 8(2) of the Orrissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980. Following the cancellation of the caste certificate, the appellant initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent and penalty for dismissal from service was imposed. The first respondent’s appeal against the order of the cancellation was also dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court held

¶66

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 977

¶67

that the first respondent obtained employment against a post which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste. She did so on the strength of a caste certificate. The caste certificate had been invalidated by the Tahsildar. She was not entitled for that post. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the effect was to displace a genuine candidate, who would otherwise had been entitled to the post. It was further observed that no fault could be found with the conduct of the appellant in convening a disciplinary enquiry. The findings of the enquiry were unexceptionable. The punishment which was imposed could not be regarded as disproportionate. It was further observed that irrespective of whether or not the caste claim of the first respondent was fraudulent or otherwise, it was evident that the benefit which she obtained of securing employment against a reserved post would have to be recalled once the caste claim had been rejected.

¶68

10. Para Nos.22 & 23 of Bhubaneswar Development Authority (supra) read as under:

¶69

“22. This Court further held that granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for the post has a deleterious effect on good governance as it: (i) allows an ineligible person to gain access to a scarce public resource (public employment); (ii) violates the rights of eligible persons; and iii) perpetuates illegality by unduly bestowing benefits on an ineligible person.

¶70

23. The first respondent obtained employment against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes to which she was not entitled. The effect is to displace a genuine candidate, who would otherwise have been entitled to the post. No fault can be found with the conduct of the appellant in convening a disciplinary enquiry. The findings of the enquiry are unexceptionable. The punishment which was imposed could not be regarded as disproportionate. Irrespective of whether or not the caste claim of the first respondent was fraudulent or otherwise, it is evident that the benefit which she obtained of securing employment against a reserved post would have to be recalled once the caste claim has been rejected.”

¶71

In Ramakant v. Union of India² , the petitioner therein had obtained appointment against the Scheduled Caste category post on the strength of caste/social status certificate but later on in enquiry it was found that he was belonging to OBC and not Scheduled Caste. The Allahabad High Court held that by producing a forged and fabricated certificate on misrepresentation, not only did the petitioner secure a job but he was also responsible in depriving a genuine candidate to the post. The appointment of the petitioner was void and non est in the eyes of law. The punishment that had been awarded to the petitioner befitted the misconduct committed. The Allahabad High Court further observed that any modification with respect to the quantum of punishment would only amount misplaced sympathy and perpetuate the fraud.

¶72

In Ramakant (supra) a plea was also taken that the petitioner had rendered a long years of service and consequently the punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed. The said argument was turned down. The judgment in the case of R.Viswanath Pillai v. State of Kerala³ was relied upon, in which it was held that a person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate meant for a Scheduled Caste, depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, did not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste

¶73

2019 SCC OnLine All 4254

¶74

3 2004 (2) SCC 105

¶75

certificate by playing fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. The order of dismissal from service was maintained.

¶76

13. Para Nos.13 & 14 of Ramakant’s case (supra) read as under:

¶77

13. It is common knowledge that in matters pertaining to employment, when information with regard to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is intended to verify and cross-check the suitability of the candidate for the job. If the candidate indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed. In the instant case, by producing a forged and fabricated certificate on misrepresentation not only did the petitioner secure a job but he was also responsible in depriving a genuine candidate to the post. The appointment of the petitioner is void and non est in the eyes of law. The punishment that has been awarded to the petitioner befits the misconduct committed by him, thus, any modification with respect to the quantum of punishment will only amount misplaced sympathy and perpetuate the fraud.

¶78

14. A similar plea about long years of service rendered on forged document was considered by the Supreme Court in R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala , it was held to be inconsequential. In paragraph 21, it was observed:

¶79

"The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in case where the individual acquired a status by practising fraud."

¶80

In the present case the finding of the enquiry officer takes into consideration, the report/order of the District Collector, of cancellation of Scheduled Tribe certificate of the petitioner.

¶81

On our specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Collector has not been challenged and has become final.

¶82