IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15646 of 2008 Between: 1. The Executive Engineer HLC (LOC) Division, Anantapur. 2. The Superintending Engineer TBP, HLC Circle, Anantapur. 3. The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt. G. Mary Dyvakrupa, Typist (Govt. Service) R/o. D.No. 18-1-81, Neeruganti Street, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn., Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No. 5953/2007 dt. 4-3-2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: -none- The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15646 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁeld assailing the order, dated 04.03.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.595 of 2007. The respondent herein is the applicant in the said O.A. The O.A., was ﬁled questioning order of the 1st petitioner, dated 28.09.2007, relieving her from duties pursuant to the order of termination, dated 26.09.2007 passed by the 2nd petitioner. Brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as Typist under SC quota by the District Selection Committee for Group-IV services and was allotted to the petitioner- department by proceedings dated 13.04.2007. Later, the 1st petitioner addressed a letter dated 16.05.2007 to the authority concerned for veriﬁcation of the genuineness of the pass certiﬁcate of 10+2 issued by the All India Board of Secondary Education (AIBOSE), Delhi. In response to the same, the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, has informed the 1st petitioner that AIBOSE, in which the respondent studied, does not exist. Pursuant thereto, 2nd petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent calling for her explanation as to why she shall not be terminated from service for producing invalid certiﬁcate issued by a non-existing board. Accordingly, on 09.09.2007, the respondent submitted an explanation stating that the institution where she studied is not giving any response, that she did not know that AIBOSE is a fake board, and therefore, she requested the petitioners to permit her to acquire requisite qualiﬁcation within one year. However, as respondent did not acquire requisite qualiﬁcation, 2nd petitioner passed an order on 26.09.2007 terminating the respondent from service on 26.09.2007, and pursuant thereto, the 1st petitioner, by proceedings 28.09.2007, relieved her from duty. She challenged the said proceedings before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, 2 nd petitioner ﬁled a counter contending, inter alia, that the selection of the respondent was merely on the basis of marks obtained by her in the qualifying examination by waiving written examination and interview, and it was purely provisional and subject to veriﬁcation of antecedents, physical ﬁtness, age, community, educational qualiﬁcations etc., It is further contended that as the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent in proof of her educational qualiﬁcation was found to be invalid, she was terminated from service. The Tribunal, considering the rival contentions, allowed the O.A setting aside the order of termination passed by the 1st petitioner dated 28.9.2007, mainly on the ground that no enquiry has been conducted by the authority in regard to the genuineness of the certiﬁcate submitted by the respondent and that the procedure contemplated under rule 17(a)(ii) of the A.P. State and subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) has not been followed. Tribunal, however, gave liberty to the petitioners to pass orders in terms of rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal has failed to note that a notice as required under rule 17(a)(ii) has in fact been issued and that the order of termination has been passed only after giving suﬃcient opportunity to the respondent to establish that the certiﬁcate produced by her is a valid and genuine one. He further submitted that since the order of termination is not punitive in nature or has attached with any stigma, no enquiry is required to be conducted. Since the respondent has been terminated not on ground of any misconduct but only on ground that the certiﬁcate produced by her is a fake one issued by a fake Board known as ‘All India Board of Secondary Education, Delhi’, (AIOBSE), the order of termination is valid inasmuch she does not possess the requisite qualiﬁcation prescribed under the rules. The decisions relied upon by the Tribunal have no application since the order of termination has not been passed in relation to any misconduct but for producing a fake educational certiﬁcate issued by a fake Board. He, therefore, prayed that the Tribunal is not justiﬁed in setting aside the order of termination and prayed for quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal contending that the order attaches stigma and, therefore, enquiry as contemplated under the rules ought to have been conducted. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Tribunal is justiﬁed in setting aside the order of termination? There is no dispute that under rule 12(a)(ii) of the Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he or she possesses the academic qualiﬁcations prescribed for the post. The qualiﬁcations prescribed for the post of a Typist are that one must have passed Intermediate Examination or any equivalent examination and a pass in Government technical examination in Typewriting by higher grade in English and Telugu. It is not in dispute that pursuant to a notiﬁcation issued by the District Collector, Anantapur, for ﬁlling up of SC and ST backlog vacancies in the Subordinate Oﬃces of Anantapur District, the respondent applied for the same. It is also not in dispute that the selection in respect of this limited recruitment was made only on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination by waiving the written examination including interview. The respondent was selected as a typist on the basis of marks obtained by her in the qualifying examination and certificate alleged to have been issued by the City College, Anantapur certifying that she passed the Intermediate Examination. The certiﬁcate submitted by the respondent appears to have been issued on the basis of examination conducted by All India Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. Subsequent to her appointment, 1st petitioner has addressed letters to the Principal of the City College, Anantapur and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi on 16.5.2007 for veriﬁcation of the pass certiﬁcate produced by the respondent. Though the Principal, City College where the respondent appears to have prosecuted the course, certiﬁed the same to be a genuine one, but the CBSE in their letter dated 30.5.2007 informed the 1st petitioner that the All India Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi from where the respondent is alleged to have passed Senior School Examination has been identiﬁed as a fake Board and that the status of the said Board can be obtained from the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE), which is an association of all the Boards/Councils of Secondary and Senior Secondary Education in the country, which are duly constituted by the State Government and Government of India. The 1st petitioner then addressed a letter to COBSE for further information and on that the COBSE intimated the 1st petitioner that All India Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, which is alleged to have conducted the examination in Senior School Examination, is a fake board. The COBSE has also intimated about the existence of four fake boards which includes AIOBSE. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by the 2nd petitioner on 13.7.2007 to the respondent to submit her explanation within ten days as to why her services should not be terminated for producing an invalid certiﬁcate issued by a fake Board, as per Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, 1996 read with rule 9 of A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991. In response to the same, the respondent by her letter dated 26.7.2007 sought time to submit her explanation and the same was favourably considered by the 2nd petitioner by letter-dated 9.8.2997 granting time to the respondent to submit her explanation on or before 19.8.2007. However, by letter dated 18.8.2007, she again sought for a month’s time to submit her explanation on the ground that she has to approach the institution where she had studied and that the institution authorities have addressed the university authorities for authentication. By letter dated 5.9.2007, the 2nd petitioner ﬁnally directed the respondent to submit her explanation within three days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, it was intimated that it has to be construed that she has no explanation to oﬀer and she will be terminated from service as per rules in force. Thereafter, she ﬁled her explanation on 9.9.2007 explaining that the institution where she had studied is not giving any responses in spite of several times approaching for authentication, that she does not know that the institution is a bogus one till show cause notice was received and that she may be excused for the same, that she may be permitted to acquire the requisite qualiﬁcation within one year on humanitarian grounds. Not satisﬁed with the explanation, the 2nd petitioner by proceedings No.EC2/SF.14/10C dated 26.9.2007 passed order of termination in accordance with rule 12(a)(ii) of the rules read with Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules on ground that the respondent has not fulﬁlled the prescribed qualification as per rules. Rule 12(a)(ii) of the rules clearly stipulates that one must fulﬁll the qualiﬁcations prescribed for appointment to a post. According to the petitioners, the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent is not a genuine one. No doubt, the recruiting authority was under an obligation to see that the certiﬁcates produced by the selected candidates are genuine and they possess the requisite qualiﬁcations prescribed for the post as per the rules. If the certiﬁcate produced by the candidate is found to be not a genuine one, he or she is not entitled to be continued in service. But the fact of the matter is that it must be established in an enquiry conducted as per the rules. In the instant case, the recruiting authority entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent. Before we proceed further, it is relevant to refer to Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules, which reads as follows: 17.Suspension, termination or extension of probation: (a) (i) The appointing authority may, at any time, before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation, suspend the probation of a probationer and discharge him from service for want of vacancy. (ii) The appointing authority may, at anytime, before or after the expiry of the prescribed period of probation either extend by not more than one year, whether on duty or otherwise, the period of probation of a probationer, in case the probation has not been extended under sub- rule (b) of this rule or terminate his probation and discharge him from service after giving him one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of such notice, on account of unsatisfactory performance or progress during training or unsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory conductor for any other suﬃcient reason to be recorded in writing. From the above, it is clear that the appointing authority may, at any time, before or after the expiry of the prescribed period of probation, extend the period of probation of a probationer or terminate his or her probation and discharge the individual from service after giving one month’s notice or one month’s pay in lieu of such notice, on account of unsatisfactory performance or progress during training or unsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory conduct or for any other suﬃcient reason to be recorded in writing. In the instant case, the probation of the respondent has not been extended or terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory conduct. Her services have been terminated only on the ground that she produced a fake educational certiﬁcate. Whether the certiﬁcate produced by her is genuine or a fake one, the same has to be established in an enquiry to be conducted in accordance with the rules. We are of the view that since the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been passed on the ground that she has produced a fake educational certiﬁcate, without conducting any enquiry, the same is tainted with a stigma. It is well settled principle of law that where an order of termination is tainted with a stigma, an enquiry must be held in accordance with the rules; otherwise, it would violate the principle of audi alteram partem. Unless it is established in an enquiry that the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent is a fake one, the order of termination cannot be said to have been validly passed. There is no dispute that in the instant case no enquiry has been held as to the genuineness or otherwise of the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of termination passed by the appellants cannot be sustained. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the respondent has not been terminated on ground of any misconduct or that the order is not punitive in nature and that suﬃcient opportunity was given to the respondent to prove that the certiﬁcate produced by her is a valid and genuine one has no merit. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that an enquiry ought to have been conducted in regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the certiﬁcate produced by the respondent and that the procedure contemplated in Rule 17(a)(ii) of the rules has not been followed. Further, under Rule 17(a)(ii) it is mandatory that a month’s notice is issued to show cause against the purported action. But, in the instant case, show cause notice has been issued under Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Rules giving only ten days time to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated for producing a certiﬁcate, alleged to be a fake one. Since it is mandatory that a month’s notice is required to be issued, we are of the view that the show cause notice said to have been issued to the respondent does not satisfy the requirement of law. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not ﬁnd any error in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal is justiﬁed in setting aside the order of termination. The Writ Petition must, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed, but, with no order as to costs. It is always open for the petitioners to conduct enquiry in accordance with law. ___________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) _________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 19t h August 2008 sh