THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2004 DATED 12th NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: Smt.A.Surya Kumari … Petitioner A n d The Northern Power Distribution Company Of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad, and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner, an employee in the Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (for short, ‘the APNPDCL’), challenges the Memo bearing No.SE/OP/Wgl/PO/ Adm.U1/D.No.1119 dated 10.09.2003 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, APNPDCL, Warangal, imposing upon her the punishment of reversion to the post of Attender; withholding of promotion for the next three years and ordering recovery of the amount in excess drawn by her with regard to irregular promotions. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as an Attender in the service of the APNPDCL on 14.10.1990. At that point of time, no minimum educational qualification was prescribed for appointment to the said post. While so, it appears that the petitioner had produced a fake certificate of having passed SSC. Basing on her service and her educational qualification, she was promoted to the post of Helper with effect from 12.11.1992 and thereafter, as an Instrument Mechanic Grade-II with effect from 28.02.1998. However, upon coming to know of the fake SSC certificate of the petitioner, the APNPDCL issued charge memo dated 28.03.2002 and subjected the petitioner to a domestic enquiry. The defence of the petitioner was that the said fake certificate had been produced by her son-in-law, who was inimically inclined towards her as she had failed to sponsor him for compassionate appointment. Upon culmination of the enquiry proceedings, the APNPDCL issued show cause notice dated 06.08.2003 proposing the three punishments aforestated i.e. reversion to the post of Attender, withholding of promotion for three years and recovery of excess amounts paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 16.08.2003 and after considering the same, the APNPDCL passed the impugned proceedings dated 10.09.2003 confirming the proposed punishments. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the APNPDCL. Strictly speaking, in the event of securing of an appointment by way of fraudulent means, i.e. by production of a fake or concocted certificate, the very inception of such appointment would be vitiated warranting removal from service. But, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not required to produce any proof of educational qualification for securing appointment to the post of Attender. Further, once the Enquiry Officer accepted the version put- forth by the petitioner with regard to her innocence in this regard, she cannot be penalized for the production of the said certificate by her son-in-law. In that view of the matter, the order of the Disciplinary Authority reverting the petitioner to the post of Attender is unassailable. As the production of the certificate was not required for securing appointment to the post of Attender, the action of the APNPDCL in merely reverting the petitioner to the said post is justified, given the facts and circumstances of this case. It is admitted that without the minimum educational qualification of SSC, the petitioner was not entitled to further promotions. That being so, the promotions secured by her on the basis of the fake certificate and the extra monetary benefits paid to her pursuant to such irregular promotions, necessarily have to be withdrawn. The order of the Disciplinary Authority directing recovery of such amounts is therefore equally unassailable. It is not the case of the petitioner that she thereafter secured the educational qualification of a pass in SSC, enabling her to aspire for further promotions. Therefore, the third punishment, being the withholding of promotion for a period of three years, is only a hypothetical one, in the sense that even if the petitioner secured such qualification she would still not be entitled to be considered for promotion for three years. It is not demonstrated before me that the said punishment ever translated into reality as there is no proof that the petitioner secured the educational qualification of SSC. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 10.09.2003, imposing suitable and justifiable punishment upon the petitioner is thus not liable for interference on any ground. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 12th NOVEMBER, 2009 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.315 OF 2004 12th NOVEMBER, 2009