Judgment If suspicion is allowed to take the place of proof, it may sometimes run amok in one’s life. This has been amply proved in the case of the petitioner who has fallen victim of the viles of his own disgruntled step-brother and the indiscreet and inept conduct of the officials of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The heart rending story of the petitioner is narrated hereunder: The petitioner obtained Heavy Motor Driving licence on 15-11-1979. On 29-6-1990, he applied for the post of Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Karimnagar-I Depot (for short “the Corporation”). Initially, he was appointed as a Driver on 22-1-1992 on daily wage basis and his services were regularized on 7-8-1992. Then came as a bolt from the blue, a petition in the name of D. Durgaiah, addressed to the General Manager of the respondents-Corporation which was referred to the Vigilance Inspector, who submitted a report thereon on 27-11-1992. Based on this report, charge sheet dated 9-3-1993 was issued to the petitioner with the following three charges : 1. For having (been) involved in impersonation by concealing your original name of Sri G. Meenakshi and getting employment as a driver under the name of your younger brother Sri G. Janardhan, thus cheating the Corporation and concealing the facts, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2. For having purchased 5th class educational certificate of Sri G. Janardhan, though your original name is Sri G. Meenakshi, thus concealing the facts and cheating the Organisation, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3. For having obtained and produced the driving licence in the name of Sri G. Janardhan, though your original name is Sri G. Meenakshi, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1963”. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 17-3-1993. The contents of this explanation will be adverted to later. It will suffice at this stage to note that while denying the allegation of any impersonation, the petitioner has referred in detail to various pieces of evidence such as Driving Licence, purchase of tractor, obtaining Ration Card, Community Certificate, Voters’ list, LIC policy etc. The contents of this explanation will be adverted to later. It will suffice at this stage to note that while denying the allegation of any impersonation, the petitioner has referred in detail to various pieces of evidence such as Driving Licence, purchase of tractor, obtaining Ration Card, Community Certificate, Voters’ list, LIC policy etc. The petitioner has also clearly stated in the explanation that no person in the name of D. Durgaiah exists to his knowledge and suspecting that that his step brother Gattaiah with whom he and his other family members have serious disputes over the distribution of family assets and who lost the litigation, might have engineered this false complaint, he requested that the Corporation may not take cognizance of such pseudonymous petitions. The Corporation has however decided to conduct an enquiry and has accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry proceedings, except recording the explanation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has not summoned any witnesses. Based on certain photocopies of the purported certificates sent by the said D. Durgaiah and the alleged discrepancy in the stand taken by the petitioner between his explanation submitted to the charge sheet and his statement recorded during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 5-6-1993, held all the three charges proved. Even after receipt of the said enquiry report, respondent No.1 has not proceeded further. Obviously after waiting for one year, the real person entered the scene. He is no other than the step-brother of the petitioner by name Gundu Gattaiah, who has submitted petition dated 23-6-1994 to the Managing Director of the Corporation wherein similar allegations were made against the petitioner. The Managing Director made an endorsement on 28-6-1994 to respondent No.1 to enquire into the complaint. This has obviously propelled respondent No.1 to initiate further action by issuing show cause notice dated 30-8-1994 for removal of the petitioner from service based on the enquiry report dated 5-6-1993 to which the latter submitted his explanation. However, respondent No.1 by his proceedings dated 6-12-1996 agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and removed the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 proved abortive with its rejection on 18-2-1997. However, respondent No.1 by his proceedings dated 6-12-1996 agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and removed the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 proved abortive with its rejection on 18-2-1997. The petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute before the Chairman, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (for short “the Labour Court”) which was registered as I.D.No.172/1999 and the same also ended in its dismissal vide award dated 7-5-2001. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. I have extensively heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the course of hearing, the petitioner filed WPMP No.29850/2012 to receive a certified copy of the final report dated 31-12-1996 of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I-Town Police Station in F.I.R.No.93/1994 dated 20-7-1994 registered on the complaint of Gundu Gattaiah against the petitioner. On 2-8-2012, upon considering the contents of the said report and the facts in detail, this Court expressed its prima facie view that the order of removal of the petitioner from service cannot be sustained. Thereupon, Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, who has also perused the said final report filed in the criminal case, requested the Court for an adjournment with liberty to the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner’s case in the light of the available evidence. The case was accordingly adjourned. On 16-8-2012, the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Corporation has issued appropriate proceedings and that the same will be produced before the Court on the next date of hearing. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 23-8-2012. On the said date, the learned Standing Counsel sought to produce before the Court the proceedings whereby the Corporation purported to reaffirm its earlier decision. As this act on the part of the Corporation was contrary to the understanding on which the case was adjourned, namely, to reconsider its decision in favour of the petitioner if there is any possibility, the further reiteration of its earlier decision by the Corporation by the above mentioned proceeding was absolutely unnecessary when the order of removal as confirmed in the appeal and also in the Industrial Dispute, is the subject matter of this Writ Petition and hence this Court declined to receive the said proceeding on record and closed the hearing. The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioner is that though his name is G. Meenakshi, he has impersonated himself as his younger brother G. Janardhan, by obtaining the Transfer Certificate and the Driving Licence and secured employment in the Corporation in the said name. In his explanation dated 17-3-1993 given to the charge sheet, the petitioner stated that that his grand father has named him as Meenakshi when he was born; that his relatives still call him Meenakshi in the village; that when he was admitted in the Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur, in the first standard, his name was recorded in the school register as Gundu Meenakshaiah and that he discontinued studies on completion of the third standard. He has further stated that as he liked agriculture right from his childhood, he was roaming around the agricultural fields after discontinuing his studies; that after the death of his father in 1962, serious property disputes arose between his step-brother Gundu Gattaiah who is the eldest son through the first wife of his father; that his name was entered by his step-brother as Meenakshi in the place of Meenakshaiah in the revenue record after dividing the property into five shares; and that after his father’s death, his step-brother has knocked away gold and cash and constructed a huge house in Karimnagar abandoning the petitioner and his whole family comprising four brothers and three sisters. It is the further case of the petitioner that as his step-brother has left the village about 33 years back, the latter is not aware of the details of how and where the petitioner and his other family members have lived and studied. The petitioner specifically pleaded that when he was idling away his time after discontinuing his studies, his mother has readmitted him in the school in the fourth standard by changing his name as Janardhan and that after studying upto V class he has again discontinued his studies and learnt engine mechanism works and that since then he was being called as Janardhan. He further stated that 20 years back (somewhere around the year 1973) he has left Ootur for Hasanparthy village, Warangal District, and learnt tractor driving and worked as a tractor driver for about ten years and that on 15-11-1979, he has obtained Medium Goods Vehicle Driving Licence in his name as G. Janardhan and stated that he was enclosing the same as Annexure-I. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter he has changed his residence to Hanamkonda and bought a tractor of Escort make bearing registration No.ATO-1208 and that the documents relating to the purchase of the said tractor also mention his name as Janardhan and has filed the said document as Annexure-II; that on 31-1-1990, he has personally got the tractor registered in the name of his wife G. Venkata Lakshmi wherein his name is shown as G. Janardhan and the said document is enclosed as Annexure-III; that on 10-5-1990 his wife has sold the said tractor to his brother Gundu Janardhan and his father-in-law Gajula Venkataratnam, and the documents connected with the sale filed as Annexure-IV, also contain the petitioner’s name as G. Janardhan; that on 9-4-1987, the petitioner’s wife opened an account in the Post Office in respect of which Passbook account No.941655 was issued wherein his name is shown as Janardhan and the said document was enclosed as Annexure-V; that when he stayed in H.No.3-11-90/1, Kumarpalli, Hanamkonda, he has obtained ration card bearing No.6365497 enclosed as Annexure-VI in which his name is shown as Janardhan; that Annexure-VII, caste certificate dated 28-6-1990 was issued in his name as G. Janardhan; that page-6 of the 1993 voters’ list showed the petitioner’s name as Janardhan at Sl.No.550 with H.No.2-75 and the same was enclosed as Annexure-VIII; that the L.I.C. policy No.680851008, dated 28-6-1992 was taken in his name as G. Janardhan and his wife’s name is shown therein as G. Venkata Lakshmi and that this document was enclosed as Annexure-IX. On the basis of the above expansive documentary evidence, the petitioner asserted that his name was changed in the school records as G. Janardhan from Meenakshaiah and that he was being called as Janardhan @ Meenakshaiah by his close relatives and the villagers. He therefore fervently requested the Corporation to ignore the frivolous and vexatious complaint engineered by his step-brother. On the basis of the above expansive documentary evidence, the petitioner asserted that his name was changed in the school records as G. Janardhan from Meenakshaiah and that he was being called as Janardhan @ Meenakshaiah by his close relatives and the villagers. He therefore fervently requested the Corporation to ignore the frivolous and vexatious complaint engineered by his step-brother. More importantly, the petitioner has stated that his brother G. Janardhan does not know driving and that when he obtained employment in the Corporation, the post of Driver did not require any educational qualification and therefore there was no need for him to produce the Transfer Certificate standing in the name of his brother. Let me now consider the evidence available on record. As the relevant evidence was marked before the Labour Court, for convenience, the same is referred as it was marked before it. All the documents were marked by the Corporation/Management itself and they were given M-series. Ex.M-1 is the application filed before the Corporation for employment in the name of G. Janardhan. His date of birth is shown as 10-6-1957 and his educational qualification is shown as a pass in Class V. The details of the Driving Licence and registration in the Employment Exchange etc., were mentioned therein. Ex.M-2 is the Transfer Certificate issued in the name of G. Janardhan s/o. G. Mallaiah, wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 10-6-1957. The Class in which the pupil was studying at the time of leaving the school was shown as VI and the date on which the pupil was admitted in that class was shown as 16-6-1970. The date of issue of the Transfer Certificate was shown as 7-7-1970. Ex.M-3 is the Driving Licence dated 15-11-1979 in the name of G. Janardhan. Ex.M-4 is the Employment registration slip dated 28-6-1990 issued in the name of G. Janardhan and the date of its renewal was mentioned as June 1993. The date of birth was shown therein as 10-6-1957. Ex.M-5 is the Residence Certificate in the name of G. Janardhan. Ex.M-6 is the Caste Certificate of G. Janardhan. Ex.M-8 (11/1) which is a very crucial document upon which the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based is the purported Bonafide Certificate which was sent along with the complaint in the name of D. Durgaiah. Ex.M-5 is the Residence Certificate in the name of G. Janardhan. Ex.M-6 is the Caste Certificate of G. Janardhan. Ex.M-8 (11/1) which is a very crucial document upon which the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based is the purported Bonafide Certificate which was sent along with the complaint in the name of D. Durgaiah. This certificate was purportedly issued by the Head Master of the Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur, wherein it is certified that Gundu Meenakshaiah s/o. Mallaiah was a bonafide student of the school during the years 1957 to 1959 and studied Classes I to III during that period and that his date of birth is 25-7-1950. Another Bonafide Certificate Ex.M-8 (11/2) certified that Gandu Janardhan s/o. Mallaiah was a bonafide student of the school during the years 1968 to 1970, studied Classes IV to VI and that his date of birth is 10-6-1957. The Enquiry Officer has placed heavy reliance on these certificates coupled with the Transfer Certificate, marked as Ex.M-9, issued in the name of G. Janardhan and accepted the theory propounded by the so-called Durgaiah to the effect that the petitioner whose name was Meenaksiaha was born on 25-7-1950; that he studied Classes I to III from 1957 to 1959; that his brother Gundu Janardhan (wrongly shown as Gandu Janardhan in Ex.M-8 (11/2) has studied Classes IV to VI from 1968 to 1970; that his date of birth is 10-6-1957 and that the petitioner made use of the Transfer Certificate (Ex.M-9) issued in the name of his brother G. Janardhan. What this Court is unable to comprehend is that the Enquiry Officer believed the Bonafide Certificate (Ex.M-8 – 11/1) which is only a purported photocopy of the alleged Bonafide Certificate without any probe into the genuineness or otherwise of the said document. No effort was made by the Enquiry Officer to trace the so-called Durgaiah and summon him for recording his statement. When the petitioner has specifically pleaded in his explanation to the charge sheet that to his knowledge nobody exists in the name of D. Durgaiah, and that the entire complaint was engineered by his step brother Gattaiah, the Enquiry Officer has not bothered to find if such person exists, and if so, to summon him to produce the original of the so-called Bonafide certificate sent along with the complaint. The Enquiry Officer has not thought it fit to summon at least the Head Master of the Z.P. Secondary School, who allegedly issued the said Bonafide certificate. If Ex.M-8 (11/1) is eschewed from evidence, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was born in 1950 and not on 10-6-1957, as borne out by Ex.M-8 (11/2)-Bonafide certificate and Ex.M-9-Transfer Certificate. In contrast, the slew of the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner would clinchingly establish that he is renamed as Gundu Janardhan as his younger brother was also named and discontinued VI class. In this context, the final report dated 31-12-1996 filed by the S.I. of Police, Karimnagar I-Town Police Station in F.I.R.No.193/94 dated 20-7-1994 assumes much relevance and the same needs to be discussed. The said F.I.R. was registered on the complaint of the petitioner’s step brother Gundu Gattaiah wherein he has made a similar complaint on 20-7-1994 against the petitioner and his younger brother Gundu Janardhan. The case was registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The Investigation Officer has made a thorough investigation into the complaint and filed his report. In the final report, the Investigation Officer stated with reference to the complaint that G. Gattaiah filed a complaint against G. Meenakshaiah – A-1, elder brother of G. Janardhan – A-2; that the petitioner was born on 25-7-1950, studied from Classes I to III in Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur during 1957-59 while his younger brother was born on 10-6-1957 and studied in the same school from Classes IV to VI during the years 196870 and that A-2 was appointed as a teacher in the Z.P. School, Karimnagar, while A-1 has got himself registered in the name of his younger brother on the basis of the latter’s certificate. The Investigation Officer has examined Gundu Gattaiah, the complainant and the Head Master of the Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur, and recorded their statements. The Investigation Officer has examined Gundu Gattaiah, the complainant and the Head Master of the Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur, and recorded their statements. He has further stated that the Head Master of the Z.P. Secondary School, Ootur has issued the Bonafide and Date of birth Certificate of A-2 which shows 12-7-1959 as the latter’s date of birth; that except the said certificate, the records relating to the education of A-1 and A-2 are not traceable; that he has addressed letter to the Depot Manager-respondent No.1 wherein he has requested to furnish the educational certificates of A-1; that respondent No.1 has informed him that for the post of Heavy Motor Vehicle driver in the Corporation, there was no need for the employee to possess educational qualifications and that A-1 has got the H.M.V. driving licence in the name of Gundu Janardhan and the date of birth furnished therein was 10-6-1957; that no certificates relating to the educational qualifications were submitted by A-1 at the time of the interview as the Corporation did not need them for the post of Driver and that the investigation revealed that A-2 has got his date of birth entered in his service register as 12-7-1959. The Investigation Officer further stated that during the investigation he gathered copies of Caste Certificate, Residence Certificate, Call Letter, Local Candidate Certificate, L.I.C. policy, Driving Licence, Vehicle Permit, letter dated 16-8-1994 addressed by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Ootur, office order of the Corporation, Agreement of sale, Ration Card and Postal Savings Passbook, all belonging to A-1, and the Voters’ list for the year 1993 of Ootur village, and copies of the S.S.C., Intermediate and Degree Certificates of A-2 (brother of the petitioner, G. Janardhan). The Investigation Officer also identified both A-1 and A-2 having the same name i.e., G. Janardhan, with the help of their photos on the copies of their certificates. With reference to all this evidence, the Investigation Officer has stated in his report as under : “In the Caste Certificate dated 28-6-1990 issued by the MRO, Manakondur, driving licence and Ration Card A1’s passport size photo is affixed and his name is shown as Gundu Janardhan. In the Residence Certificate dt. 28-6-1990 A-1’s name is mentioned as Gundu Janardhan and also in the call letter dt. 15-9-1990 issued by APSRTC, Karimnagar, dt. In the Residence Certificate dt. 28-6-1990 A-1’s name is mentioned as Gundu Janardhan and also in the call letter dt. 15-9-1990 issued by APSRTC, Karimnagar, dt. 11-11-1991 issued by the M.R.O. Manakondur A-1’s name is shown as Gundu Janardhan and he is the local candidate of Ootur village from 10-6-1957 to 11-11-1991. In the LIC policy also A-1’s name is shown as Gundu Janardhan, his date of birth 10-6-1957 and his wife Venkatalakshmi is the nominee. A letter dated 16-8-19994 was issued by the BH to A-1 in the name of Gundu Janardhan (Meenaxi) asking him to repay the crop loan. Office orders of the APSRTC show that A-1 was appointed as Driver in the name of Gundu Janardhan. The voters list for the year 1993 of Ootur village shows that A-1 and his wife are shown as voters in the names of Janardhan and Venkatalaxmi. Ration card was also issued in favour of A-1 in the name of Gundu Janardhan and postal saving Bank pass book was opened in the name of his wife. All these documents prove that A-1’s name is Gundu Janardhan and his wife Venkatalaxmi. A-1’s date of birth is 10-6-1957. The investigation discussed that A-1’s original name is Janardhan. He was called as Meenaxaiah in his childhood named by his grand father. Therefore, he is known as Janardhan @ Meenaxaiah. He does not possess any educational qualifications. He is a skilled man. As such he learnt driving and obtained a driving licence. He got registered his name with the District Employment Exchange, Karimnagar on his driving licence on 28-6-90. On the analysis of the above documentary evidence, the following conclusion was drawn by the Investigation Officer: “The entire investigation disclosed that neither A1 nor A2 has committed any cheating or forgery in respect of their names and date of birth and in getting their employment. Therefore, it is liable to be closed referring it as a ‘Mistake of Fact’. Therefore, it is requested that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to close the case referring it as ‘Mistake of Fact’ and issue proceedings accordingly. Notice served on the complaint is herewith submitted. Hence the final report. Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar, I-Town. To the petitioner’s misfortune, this report came into existence a few days after respondent No.1 passed the order of removal of the former from service. Notice served on the complaint is herewith submitted. Hence the final report. Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar, I-Town. To the petitioner’s misfortune, this report came into existence a few days after respondent No.1 passed the order of removal of the former from service. However, in his appeal filed before respondent No.2, the petitioner has made a specific reference to the said final report. Despite the same, respondent No.2 has failed to consider the contents of the said final report and mechanically confirmed the order of respondent No.1 by his cryptic order. As noted above, the Enquiry Officer has neither examined any witnesses nor summoned the original documents. He has only taken into consideration three circumstances, namely, (i) that the explanation of the petitioner that on attaining the school going age, he was admitted in Class-I in the Z.P. School, Ootur and that as six years is the school going age, Ex.M-8 (11/1) strengthens his statement that at the age of 7 years, he got admitted in Class-I in the year 1957 and studied upto the year 1959; (ii) that the petitioner’s explanation given to the charge sheet that he left Ootur 20 years back, is construed by the Enquiry Officer as the former stating that he left Ootur 20 years prior to 24-4-1986, the date on which the petitioner purchased the tractor; and (iii) that while in his explanation given to the charge sheet the petitioner has stated that he had discontinued going to the school on completion of the third standard and was readmitted in the fourth standard in his changed name as G. Janardhan, in the statement recorded before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner stated that he was readmitted in the third standard and thereby there was discrepancy with regard to the Class in which he was re-admitted. On a careful analysis of the undisputed facts, I do not find any basis whatsoever for the above three assumptions of the Enquiry Officer. By stating that he was admitted in Class-I on his attaining the school going age, the petitioner has nowhere accepted that he got admitted in Class-I in the year 1957. Except the photocopy of the purported Bonafide certificate enclosed to the pseudonymous petition, there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was born on 25-7-1950. By stating that he was admitted in Class-I on his attaining the school going age, the petitioner has nowhere accepted that he got admitted in Class-I in the year 1957. Except the photocopy of the purported Bonafide certificate enclosed to the pseudonymous petition, there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was born on 25-7-1950. On the contrary, the petitioner’s plea that he was born on 10-6-1957 is well supported by the Bonafide Certificate (Ex.M-8 – 11/2) and the Transfer Certificate-(Ex.M-9). The finding that as the petitioner has left Ootur in 1966 itself he would not have studied Classes IV to VI from 1968 to 1970 and thereby implying that Ex.M-8 (11/1) might be relating to his younger brother G. Janardhan, is also wholly baseless. The petitioner has given his explanation to the charge sheet on 17-3-1993. He has stated therein that after he was readmitted in the IV standard by being renamed as G. Janardhan, he has discontinued his studies after completing the V standard and learnt the work of the Engine Mechanic and that thereafter i.e., 20 years back, he has left Ootur for Hasanparthy, Warangal District. He has further stated that subsequently he has changed his residence from Hasanparthy to Hanamkonda and purchased the tractor on 24-4-1986. The petitioner has thus made it unequivocally clear that he has he left Ootur around the year 1973 i.e., 20 years prior to 17-3-1993 when he gave the explanation to the charge sheet and not 20 years prior to his purchasing the tractor. The Enquiry Officer committed a patent error in thoroughly misconstruing the petitioner’s statement to the effect that he left Ootur 20 years prior to the date of his purchase of the tractor which was in the year 1986. On a proper understanding of the petitioner’s explanation, it is quite evident that he was in Ootur at least till 1973 and he has left the school while discontinuing VI standard in 1970. Thus, there was no improbability of the petitioner studying IV and V standards from 1968 to 1970 and discontinuing the VI standard in 1970 at Ootur. On a proper understanding of the petitioner’s explanation, it is quite evident that he was in Ootur at least till 1973 and he has left the school while discontinuing VI standard in 1970. Thus, there was no improbability of the petitioner studying IV and V standards from 1968 to 1970 and discontinuing the VI standard in 1970 at Ootur. Coming to the purported discrepancy in the version of the petitioner, no doubt, as pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, in his explanation to the charge sheet, the petitioner has claimed that he has discontinued his studies on completion of the III standard and he was readmitted in the IV standard. However, in the statement recorded before the Enquiry Officer, it was recorded that the petitioner stated that he was rejoined in the III standard. It needs to be noticed that the statement was written in manuscript by the Enquiry Officer himself and the petitioner has signed the same in Telugu. From the fact that the petitioner was a drop-out of the VI standard, it is quite obvious that he cannot read and understand English. He could not even sign in English. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that the petitioner has fully understood the contents of the statement attributed to him and there is every likelihood of the Enquiry Officer committing a mistake in noting down Class III instead of Class IV. At any rate, this in my opinion, is a very minor and insignificant discrepancy as the admitted Bonafide certificate (Ex.M-8 – 11/2) and the Transfer Certificate (Ex.M-9) would clearly show that the petitioner has studied Classes IV to VI (discontinued) from 1968 to 1970. Once the theory based on Ex.M-8 (11/1), propounded by the pseudonymous petitioner that the petitioner was born on 25-7-1950 and he has studied Classes I to III from 1957 to 1959 is rejected, every aspect pleaded by the petitioner falls into its proper place. That the petitioner was initially named as Meenakshaiah and that he was renamed as Janardhan, is well supported by the overwhelming documentary evidence as referred to above. At the cost of repetition, I may refer to a few of these documents. That the petitioner was initially named as Meenakshaiah and that he was renamed as Janardhan, is well supported by the overwhelming documentary evidence as referred to above. At the cost of repetition, I may refer to a few of these documents. Ex.M-9, the Voters’ list for the Kamalapuram Assembly Constituency of Ootur contained the name of Janardhan s/o. Mallaiah at Sl.No.556; his wife Venkata Lakshmi at Sl.No.557 and the name of Janardhan s/o. Mallaiah at Sl.No.558 and his wife Mukunda Lakshmi at Sl.No.559. The age of the person at Sl.No.556 was shown as 36 years. If the petitioner was not renamed as Janardhan, there was no possibility of the voters’ list showing two persons with the same name. Moreover, the age of the petitioner mentioned at Sl.No.556 in the voters’ list perfectly tallies with his date of birth i.e., 10-6-1957 contained in the Transfer Certificate Ex.M-9. Ex.M-20, the Proposal Form of the L.I.C. of India, shows the name of G. Janardhan s/o. Mallaiah, and his wife Venkata Lakshmi, as his nominee. These two documents are sufficient to throw away the assumption that there was only one person by name Janardhan and that it is the younger brother of the petitioner, and also to prove that the petitioner has come out with the truth that he was renamed as Janardhan, which also happens to be the name of his younger brother. It is nobody’s case that in addition to the petitioner, there was another person by name Janardhan s/o. Mallaiah. It is also not in dispute that Venkata Lakshmi is the wife of the petitioner. Regrettably, the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Labour Court have completely failed to apply their mind to the above mentioned documentary evidence which clinchingly establish the bonafides of the petitioner and the falsity in the allegations in the two petitions, undoubtedly engineered by his step-brother G. Gattaiah. In addition to the above documents as referred to in the final report filed in the criminal case in the F.I.R. referred to above, the documents such as Ration Card, Postal Savings Passbook, Driving Licence, the Vehicle Permit and the letter dated 16-8-1984 addressed by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Ootur, completely corroborate and verify the plea of the petitioner that he has not impersonated his younger brother. Another angle from which this case is to be considered is whether there was any necessity for the petitioner to impersonate his younger brother at all in order to secure employment in the Corporation. Right from the beginning, it is the consistent stand of the petitioner that at the time when he was selected as a Driver, the Corporation has not prescribed minimum educational qualifications to the said post. This plea is not controverted anywhere by the Corporation and no contra finding was recorded either by the Enquiry Officer or the subsequent Fora, which dealt with the petitioner’s case. Indeed, the Investigation Officer, in the final report, categorically stated that he has addressed letter to respondent No.1 requesting the latter to furnish educational certificates submitted by the petitioner; that respondent No.1 has informed him that for appointment to the post of a Heavy Motor Vehicle driver, there was no need for a candidate to possess educational qualifications as it is a skilled post; that the petitioner has secured the job as a Heavy Motor Vehicle driver in the name of Gundu Janardhan and that no educational qualification certificates were submitted by him at the time of interview as the Corporation did not need them for appointing him as a Heavy Motor Vehicle driver. It is not the pleaded case of the Corporation that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as a Heavy Motor Vehicle driver or that he is ineligible to obtain Driving Licence. It however alleged that the petitioner has obtained the Driving Licence by impersonating himself as G. Janardhan and also applied for and secured the job in the Corporation by such impersonation. It is beyond one’s comprehension that when no educational qualification was prescribed for the post of Driver in the Corporation, a person would resort to the act of impersonating another person and produce false certificates, apart from securing employment in somebody else’s name. This whole theory is wholly unrealistic, nay, incredible. Even without changing his name, the petitioner could as well have obtained the Driving Licence in his original name as Meenakshaiah and also have secured employment as a Driver in the Corporation. Unfortunately, none of the Fora had examined the case from this perspective. This whole theory is wholly unrealistic, nay, incredible. Even without changing his name, the petitioner could as well have obtained the Driving Licence in his original name as Meenakshaiah and also have secured employment as a Driver in the Corporation. Unfortunately, none of the Fora had examined the case from this perspective. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved, is unsupported by evidence on record and wholly perverse. The Enquiry Officer has committed a serious legal error in placing reliance on an unauthenticated photocopy of the purported Bonafide Certificate (Ex.M-8 – 11/1) and has drawn inferences and surmises therefrom, which do not stand legal scrutiny. The orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the award of the Labour Court suffer from total non-application of mind. All the Fora have completely brushed aside the relevant and cogent evidence available before them, which in no uncertain terms proves the falsity of the allegation against the petitioner that he has impersonated his younger brother. In the analysis as above, the orders of respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set-aside. The last, but not the least, question that needs to be considered is what should be the relief the petitioner deserves to be granted. The petitioner is made a victim of the frivolous and vexatious complaint given by his disgruntled adversary. He was made to lose the well secured employment in the Corporation within less than three years of his joining the Corporation. The destiny of the petitioner ordained by the God was revisited with by the Corporation at the instance of an unscrupulous element. This Court can well imagine the changed fortune of the petitioner and his family over-night by being thrown from a safe and secure position to a situation of uncertainty where the petitioner had to fend himself and his family by other means, such as agriculture. This Court can take judicial notice of the devastating effect on the whole family of a person of limited or no means, such as the petitioner, for his losing public employment, carrying decent pay, allowances and other perquisites. The quality of life which the petitioner would have provided to himself and his family members, especially on the aspects such as education to his children, would have been seriously affected. The quality of life which the petitioner would have provided to himself and his family members, especially on the aspects such as education to his children, would have been seriously affected. And all this, for absolutely no fault on his part. Apart from denial of better quality life, the mental agony which the petitioner and his family members would have suffered on account of deprivation of employment in the Corporation, is incalculable. Therefore, in my opinion, unless the petitioner is fully compensated, at least at this stage for what he and his family members have suffered, proper justice would not be ensured to him. After giving a deep and serious thought, I am of the opinion that the only way to secure justice to the petitioner is to direct the Corporation to treat the petitioner as in-service without any break in all respects with all monetary and service benefits. The petitioner was personally present in the Court and when this Court asked whether he is fit to join the Corporation back as a Driver, he replied in the affirmative. However, the Corporation is directed to subject the petitioner to appropriate medical tests and if found fit, he should be reinstated as Driver; otherwise he should be given an equivalent position which carries the same pay-scale as that of Driver. The Corporation shall complete this exercise within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, with costs of Rs.25,000/-.