IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.11286 of 2005 Between: Dr. M. Bharani, W/o. K. Rangaswamy, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 The Vice Chancellor, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No. PSTU/Admn. NT/17/1999-2005, dated 5-5-2005 (received on 14-5-2005) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the mandatory provisions of Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University Act, 1985 and consequently set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the mandatory provisions of Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University Act, 1985 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.No.11286 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.PSTU/Admn./NT/17/1999-2005, dated 5-5-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent in removing the petitioner from service of Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and also provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, she applied for the post of Superintendent pursuant to the notification dated 9-7-1990 issued by the respondent-University, since she was qualified and eligible. As per the notification, the qualification prescribed for the post of Superintendent was that one must have I Class Degree or II Class Master’s Degree and at least five years experience as Senior Assistant/U.D.C. After subjecting her to interview through a selection committee, she was selected and appointed to the post of Superintendent and joined as such on 16-11-1990. Her services were regularized with effect from 16-11-1990 and declared as approved probationer in the said cadre with effect from 28-3-1993 vide Proceedings dated 30-6-1993 of the 1st respondent. Further, she was promoted as Assistant Registrar pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, vide Proceedings No.TU/Admn.30-96, dated 9-8-1996. She took charge of the post of Assistant Registrar on 9-8-1996 itself. She was placed on probation for a period of one year and on 28-8-1997, her services were regularized in the cadre of Assistant Registrar, thereby declared as approved probationer from 10-8-1997. Thereafter, when her case was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, she filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.1028 of 2004 and this Court by an interim Order dated 21-1-2004 directed the respondents to consider her candidature for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules, on par with others. According to the petitioner, in order to avoid her promotion, a charge memo was served on her on 14-7-2004 framing the following charges: “ 1. That Dr. M.Bharani, presently Assistant Registrar, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University had applied to the post of Superintendent in the University by direct recruitment on 14.9.1990 enclosing therewith a Xerox copy of Service Certificate of experience for the period from 14.1.1984 to 7.6.1989 as Senior Assistant stated to have been issued by the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, Offset Processors, Hyderabad. She subsequently submitted a representation while in service, that she passed B.L. Degree from Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur and requested to enter the said qualification in her Service Register, which was acquired between the years 1984 and 1987 i.e., prior to applying to the post of Superintendent in the University. Thus, it is clear that at the time of submitting application to the post, Dr.M. Bharani suppressed the fact of obtaining the B.L. Degree. 2. That Dr.M.Bharani had applied to the post of Superintendent by direct recruitment in the Telugu University on 14.9.1990 duly enclosing therewith a Xerox copy of Service Certificate said to have been issued by the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, Offset Processors on 10.7.1989 that she worked in that process as Senior Assistant during the period from 14.1.1984 to 7.6.1989. It is reported by the Proprietor of Planographers that Smt.M.Bharani never worked with them in any position and that he had not issued any such Service Certificate in favour of Dr.M.Bharani. 3. That Dr. M.Bharani, with a criminal bent of mind, produced a fictitious and forged document said to have been issued by the Proprietor of M/s.Planographers Offset Printers, dated 10.7.1989. She was having criminal mind to produce the fictitious Service Certificate and thus deceived the University for unlawful personal gains, which is a serious offence punishable under Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code,1860.” Petitioner submitted her explanation to the said charge sheet on 24.8.2004 and requested the authorities to furnish certain documents. As there was no response, on 30.8.2004 and 4.9.2004 she made a request to supply documents so as to submit her explanation. On 4.9.2004, however, respondents furnished some documents while rejecting the other documents, on the ground that they are not relevant and directed to attend enquiry on 11.9.2004 and also to submit her explanation on or before 10.9.2004 to the said charge memo. She submitted her explanation and on 23.9.2004 requested the respondents to supply some more documents. In turn, on 28.9.2004 her request was rejected on the ground that they are not relevant to the charges framed. Further, she requested to intimate the names of the inquiring authority, Presenting Officer on behalf of the Department and also the witnesses, apart from the documents, but the same was not furnished. She also requested for furnishing original service certificate produced by her, which is said to be false one, apprehending that the service certificate was tampered, but the same was also not furnished to her for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. The charge memo did not contain list of witnesses or any documents. During the course of enquiry, she was taken by surprise when one Muralikrishna, who was not included in the list of witnesses, was proposed to be examined. However, the said witness was examined on 30.10.2004. The Enquiry Officer denied to sign on cross-examination papers and refused to make it as part and parcel of the enquiry report. This would fortify the stand taken by her that the original certificate was tampered. On 3.12.2004, the Presenting Officer filed an affidavit stating that she was relying upon the same documents to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. In fact, those were the documents, when applied for, were refused to be furnished by the Enquiry Officer. However, the said documents were sought to be used against the petitioner for the purpose of proving the guilt. When a request was made by the petitioner to permit her to examine the witnesses on her behalf and also to produce copy of the statement i.e. cross-examination of M/s.Planographer’s Proprietor on 14.3.2005, the same was rejected on the ground that there was no relevancy and the enquiry was abruptly closed and directed to submit her written brief. Even for submitting written brief, only seven days time was granted. There are several discrepancies in conducting enquiry as per A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. When she approached and filed an appeal before the Minister, initially it was directed not to take further action pending appeal. It was reliably learnt that the University on 25.4.2005 placed a report before the Minister stating that the enquiry was conducted as per A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules and as such, the question of appeal does not arise. This is how the University had adopted a double standard in conducting the enquiry and applying the Rules. The attitude of the respondents categorically demonstrates bias manner in which the enquiry was proceeded from the date of inception. Further, the Hon’ble Lok Ayakta has conducted an enquiry into this matter and found that there was no case stating that the complaint was registered against several persons including the petitioner herein suo motu. Though the Lok Ayukta found that no specific case was made out against the petitioner, still these proceedings were taken up. This amounts to double jeopardy and against the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, neither the enquiry conducted by the respondents is fair and proper nor there was any evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Assuming without being admitted, that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service of an employee, who had put in 15 years of blameless service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct; therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner had applied to the post of Superintendent as well as UDC. There was no written test conducted and selections were made basing only on oral interview. As regards the requirement of 5 years of service in the post of Senior Assistant, petitioner enclosed a Xerox copy of the service certificate stated to have been issued by M/s.Planographers for the said years, showing that she had worked as Senior Assistant (from 14-1-1984 to 17- 6-1989). Thus, the petitioner was selected in the open category basing on the service certificate produced by her, which was established as not genuine in the enquiry conducted by the University. Pursuant to a complaint, A.P. Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta seized the petitioner’s personal file and Service Register for an enquiry regarding her appointment as Superintendent, during the year 1996. The personal file had remained with Lok Ayukta till March,2004. The University addressed a letter to the Registrar, A.P. Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta on 24-3-2004 to intimate the stage of the enquiry in the case. The Registrar of A.P.Lok Ayukta vide his letter dated 26/29-3-2004 informed the University that there was no specific case against the petitioner pending enquiry and the records together with the Service Register of the petitioner may be taken back. After bringing back the Service Register and personal file of the petitioner from Lok Ayukta, it was noticed that after declaration of her probation in the post of Superintendent, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Registrar of the respondent-University on 27-8-1993 that she passed B.L. Degree in the year 1987 from Sri Krishnadevaraya University and requested to enter the same in the Service Register. It was also noticed that she did not mention this fact in her application for appointment to the post of Superintendent. The period of her study of B.L. Degree in S.K.University, Anantapur clashes with the service stated to have been rendered at M/s.Planographers Offset Printers, Hyderabad. She passed B.L.Degree, which is a 3 years course, in January,1987; therefore, she ought to have admitted into B.L. Degree Course in the year 1984. While pursuing her B.L. Degree in S.K. University as a regular student for three years, she could not have worked at Hyderabad as a Senior Assistant in M/s.Planographers Offset Printers. It was for this reason, petitioner did not mention her B.L. Degree qualification in the application; otherwise, production of false service certificate would have come to light at the time of scrutiny of the application itself. Therefore, notice dated 23.4.2004 was issued to the petitioner to submit her explanation. Petitioner submitted her reply on 20-5-2004 denying the allegations made in the notice. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued and a detailed enquiry was conducted after furnishing the relevant documents to the petitioner. During the enquiry, the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, namely, K.Muralikrishna deposed that the petitioner never worked in his Press in any capacity and there is no post of Senior Assistant in the Press. The allegation that the Proprietor of M/s.Planographers was presented in the enquiry all of a sudden is denied. Further, A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules,1991 are only taken as guidelines for the procedure to be followed in conducting the enquiry. The averment of the petitioner that the Statutes of the University have no legal validity is not correct. The University has been following these statutes right from its inception. The petitioner was appointed under the Statutes of the University and she is governed by those Statutes and as such, she cannot contend that the Statutes do not have the ascent of the Chancellor. Departmental proceedings can be taken by the competent authority basing on the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer as per the Statutes of the University and also as per A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules,1991. Every opportunity was given to the petitioner during the enquiry and on the demand of the petitioner, even the Enquiry Officer was once changed. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had furnished a fake service certificate at the time of submission of her application to the post of Superintendent in the year 1990, basing on which, her selection was made. The Executive Council of the University took a decision to remove the petitioner from service, in the interest of the University and also in public interest at large. The impugned Order of removal is perfectly valid and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the charges are baseless, the enquiry conducted was not fair and the petitioner had to struggle a lot to get the documents from the respondents and they were supplied in piecemeal; thus, the petitioner was not able to defend herself properly. Further, there is no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. Assuming that there is some such charge, the punishment of dismissal from service, particularly after completion of successful service of more than 15 years, is arbitrary, illegal and disproportionate to that of the proved misconduct. Further, the matter was already enquired into by the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta and it was found that there was no material against the petitioner. Sri D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, stated that the petitioner had played a fraud and obtained employment by producing a false certificate as to her experience as Senior Assistant in a company at Hyderabad and she further suppressed that she had obtained a law degree simultaneously from Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur; thus, her own statements are inconsistent and contrary to each other. Either she should have worked as Senior Assistant or she could have pursued her law degree at Anantapur; both could not have been possible at a time. They are not located in one town - the experience certificate was obtained at Hyderabad, whereas law degree was pursued at Ananthapur. This itself shows the nature of the petitioner as to obtaining degrees from Universities and producing false certificates. Therefore, even if the petitioner’s service was satisfactory and was further promoted as Assistant Registrar, that would not alter the situation, since the very entry of the petitioner into the service of the University was by fraudulent means. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. A. NAGAMALLESHWAR RAO[1], UNION OF INDIA V. PARMA NANDA[2], SECRETARY, AP.S.W.R.E.I. SOCIETY v. J. PRATHAP[3], R.VISHWANATHA PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA[4], RAM SARAN v. I.G. OF POLICE, C.P.P.F.[5] and SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES v. R. VALASINA BABU[6]. Learned counsel further submitted that the doctrine of proportionality has no application to a case of this nature, where fraud was played by the petitioner in obtaining employment and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of removal passed by the respondent-University and the petitioner does not deserve any lenience to be shown. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decision in COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP.BANK v. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION[7]. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. The sum and substance of the charge is that the petitioner has produced a false experience certificate and obtained employment as Superintendent in the respondent-University and further suppressed the information that she studied Law during 1984-87 at Anantapur. The owner of M/s.Planographers was examined in the domestic enquiry. He stated that he has not issued such a certificate nor the petitioner worked with the firm. However, the owner did not deny the letterpad on which the experience certificate was issued and stated that it belongs to their organization and the signature is one of the Mangers of the firm. The person, who issued the said certificate was not called and examined. The Enquiry Officer stated that it is for the petitioner to prove that the certificate is not a fake one. Of course, this is appreciation of evidence in a domestic enquiry and strict rules of evidence are not applicable. But, the fact remains that the certificate was issued 15 years prior to the passing of dismissal order, at the time of obtaining employment. Petitioner also stated that she was not allowed to cross-examine the owner, who stated that the certificate was not issued by him and the petitioner never worked with the firm. It is also on record that the said witness was called to the surprise of the petitioner without being named as one of the listed witnesses. Be that as it may, on the basis of some evidence, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge of production of false experience certificate has been proved. That cannot be reappreciated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, herein. Further, it appears, petitioner studied law during 1984-87. This was not disclosed to the authorities at the time of her appointment. But, it may not be out of place to notice that during the year 1984-87, the law colleges were not insisting upon the strict attendance and in fact, this was subject matter of scrutiny by the Bar Council of India and thereafter, the strict attendance rule was followed. It appears, petitioner obtained law degree at that point of time; may be in absentia. Therefore, it may not be viewed seriously, simply because the petitioner has not disclosed that she has obtained law degree in the year 1984-87 only to give an impression that she was working as Senior Assistant and she had 5 years of experience at Hyderabad in the said firm. Petitioner was subjected to selection process and thereafter, she was selected. Her service as Superintendent was never pointed out to be dissatisfactory. On the other hand, after serving as Superintendent for 5 years, she was promoted as Assistant Registrar in her due turn and on merit, again by a selection committee. As on the date of termination of her service, petitioner has completed 15 years of service. Merely because the petitioner was not able to prove that the certificate obtained by her was a true one, that itself cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing ultimate punishment of removal from service. It is not the case of the respondent-respondent that they have insisted upon experience from a recognized organization or Governmental service etc., nor it is their case that it is an essential and mandatory condition and, therefore, petitioner was not eligible for being considered nor it is their case that in the interview held for the purpose of appointment of Superintendent, many a candidate appeared and the petitioner, on the basis of her experience certificate, found to be more suitable. What exactly happened as on the date of selection and appointment, nobody is aware. Though the charges are proved that the petitioner had not worked with M/s.Planographers, that was not an essential condition, something like holding of educational qualification etc., as is decided in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. In this connection, it is relevant to discuss the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. I n A. NAGAMALLESHWAR RAO’s case (1 supra), the respondent was found to have obtained employment wrongfully misrepresenting the marks obtained by him in S.S.C. The charge was held to be proved in the departmental enquiry. While examining the scope of the Tribunal in such matters, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal should not act as Court of appeal, since the respondent therein failed to produce either original certificate or duplicate copy despite repeated opportunity and thus upheld the order of termination. In PARMA NANDA ‘s case (2 supra), the Apex Court held as under: “27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that. the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” In J.PRATHAP’s case (3 supra), while examining the power of the High Court in interfering with the punishment in service matters, it was observed as under: “6. Normally, this Court would not have entertained a petition like the present pertaining to employment of two individuals, but for the fact that the allegation against the respondents were serious and permitting the perpetrators to get away with it will only encourage further similar cases. It is quite obvious that the respondents want to steal a march over their compatriots by showing that they had attained the higher degree of BA and laying of claim for promotion. The action of the said respondents in producing fake degrees and trying to perpetrate the fraud not only on the institution which was a school, but also on other colleagues is clearly unpardonable. There was no occasion or justification for the High Court to have shown magnanimity in a matter like this.” In R. VISHWANATHA PILLAI’s case (4 supra), the Apex Court observed that a person procuring appointment in a post meant for a reserved category candidate, on the basis of a false caste certificate, is not a person holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and such appointment is no appointment in the eye of law and as such, the dismissal of a person so appointed, does not attract Article 311. In RAM SARAN’s case (5 supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision. The Courts should not interfere with the administrator’s decision, unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense, that it was in