IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25379 of 1999 Between: P.Rajaram, S/o. Ramaiah, Railway Mail Service (R.M.S) Z Division , Hyderabad, R/o. Ensanpalle , Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry Of Communications, Department Of Posts , New delhi-110001. 2 Member(P) Board of Postal Services, O/o.D.G.Posts, New Delhi-110 001. 3 Director of Postal Services, Hyderabad Region, O/o.Chief Post Master General, Dak Sadhan , Hyderabad-001. 4 Superintendent R.M.S. Z Division, Endowmwnts Building , Tilak Road, Hyderabad-500 001. 5 Secretary , Board Of Intermediate Eduction , A.P., Hyderabad-001. 6 Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep by its Registrar, HACA Bhavan , Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or any appropriate writ of the nature of MANDAMUS and setaside the orders passed by R6 in O.A 1099/97 Dt: 1-4-99 and RA 43/99 and in consequnce st aside the dismissal order; appelate order and revisional orders passed by R-4 , R-3 and R-2 respectively while their Memos Dt: 11=2=94; 8-4-94 and 3-1-97 respectively and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.S.A.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25379 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in O.A.No.1099 of 1997 dated 1.4.1999 along with R.A.No.43 of 1999 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same. It appears, petitioner, after due selection process, was appointed as Sorting Assistant in RMSZ Division with effect from 16.11.1978. His services were confirmed in the said post with effect from 9.7.1980. While that being so, it came to light that the Marks Memorandum bearing No.38707 (Regd.No.32068E) said to have been obtained by the petitioner from the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was a fake one as the same was not issued by the Board. On that basis, initially the disciplinary authority after conducting enquiry, reverted the petitioner to the post of Mail Guard. While the petitioner was undergoing the said punishment, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice dated 23.3.1982 proposing to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Questioning the said show cause notice, petitioner filed W.P.No.2829 of 1982 before this Court and this Court allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the said show cause notice as well as reversion order. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued proposing to review the penalty. Then, petitioner filed O.A.No.687 of 1989 challenging the said notice. The said O.A. was dismissed on the ground that the said challenge was premature. Thus, another show cause notice dated 31.10.1989 was issued. Petitioner challenged the same by way of filing O.A.No.70 of 1990. The Tribunal, following the law laid down by the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. MOHD.RAMZAN KHAN, allowed the O.A. by order dated 13.10.1993 and set aside the penalty of reversion to the post of Mail Guard and directed the respondents to afford an opportunity to the applicant to submit his representation if any against the findings in the inquiry report and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, a detailed enquiry was conducted and ultimately the disciplinary authority by order dated 11.2.1994 dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal and also review. Both ended in confirmation of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, he filed the present O.A.No.1099 of 1997. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The charge, in substance, is that the petitioner had produced a fake Marks Memorandum issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to show that he had passed Intermediate. According to the respondents, petitioner was given (7) marks in the selection for holding intermediate certificate, therefore he could get appointment to the post of Sorting Assistant. The fact remains that the basic qualification required for being considered to the post of Sorting Assistant was 10th class. Insofar as holding marks memo in 10th class is concerned, there is no dispute. According to the petitioner, the Board of Intermediate Education itself issued the said Marks Memorandum, thereafter it was found that certain fake certificates were issued by the Board itself in view of some corrupt practices in the Board. Thereafter, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, such fake certificates were cancelled and it appears that the certificate one issued in favour of petitioner was one among them. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has worked for more than (11) years, therefore the disciplinary authority in his wisdom imposed the punishment of reversion to a lower cadre, but the appellate authority suo-motu taken up the matter and wanted to enhance the punishment, which was the subject matter of various O.As. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while setting aside the order of reversion as well as show cause notice issued by the appellate authority, held that the enquiry was vitiated and gave liberty to the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the present order of dismissal was passed, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The basic educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Sorting Assistant is only 10th class. There is no finding as to petitioner himself created the fake certificate and produced before the respondents. It appears, the whole episode of issuing fake certificates has emanated from the Board of Intermediate itself. May be, petitioner was not entitled for appointment. But, since he had basic qualification, we are of the considered opinion that instead of imposing punishment of dismissal, the punishment of compulsory retirement would have been sufficient to meet the ends of justice, particularly when the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed after serving (11) years and after being promoted to the higher post. Generally speaking, we would not have ventured to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, but since the matter had been shuttling between the Courts for more than 15 years, in order to give a quietus to the litigation here itself and to meet the ends of justice, we modify the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ to that of ‘compulsory retirement’. The respondents are directed to settle the retiral benefits of the petitioner, as per his eligibility, and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order treating that the petitioner has been retired compulsorily. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 31.7.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.25379 of 1999 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.V.Ramulu) 31.7.2008