Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1445 (AP)

M. Bharani v. Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University

2014-12-01

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. The appellant joined the service of the first respondent-University as Superintendent on 16.11.1990 through the process of direct recruitment/selection. Thereafter, she was promoted a Assistant Registrar (Legal) on 09.08.1996. Eight years thereafter, she was issued a charge memo dated 14.07.2004, wherein it was alleged that she submitted a fabricated experience certificate at the time of recruitment and that her statement that she was employed between 1984 and 1989 cannot be treated as true since during that period, she is said to have studied Law. The appellant submitted explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent ordered domestic enquiry. In his report dated 24.03.2005, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the appointing authority passed an order dated 05.05.2005 removing the appellant from service. Challenging the order of punishment, the appellant filed W.P. No. 11286 of 2005. She pleaded that the departmental enquiry was not properly conducted and that the experience certificate filed by her was genuine and that the punishment imposed on her is disproportionate. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 26.02.2008. It was observed that the charge is proved, but the punishment imposed upon the appellant is on the higher side. Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed the Writ Appeal. 2. Heard Sri S. Ram Chander Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The charges framed against the appellant are extracted in the order passed in the writ petition. The gist thereof is that at the time of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal), the verification of possession of Bachelor Degree in Law became necessary and on verification, it emerged that the petitioner though is said to have studied Law between 1984 and 1989, an experience certificate was produced covering that very period at the time of initial appointment. During the course of enquiry, the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, Offset Printers, Hyderabad, denied the issuance of certificate. Thereby, the charge stood proved. During the course of enquiry, the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, Offset Printers, Hyderabad, denied the issuance of certificate. Thereby, the charge stood proved. The learned Single Judge also did not disturb the finding. The relief was granted mostly on the grounds of disproportionality of punishment. 4. Normally, the post of Superintendent is filled through promotion. Obviously because, the University was in the stage of formation at relevant point of time, the post was filled through direct recruitment. One of the requirements was the candidate must possess experience as Senior Assistant. The appellant produced a certificate said to have been issued by M/s. Planographers, Offset Printers. The enquiry was conducted nearly 15 years thereafter. Though the Proprietor denied the issuance of certificate, he admitted the letter head as well as the signature thereon to be true. That was treated as a mitigating circumstance by the learned Single Judge. It was felt that instead of remanding the matter for imposition of punishment other than the one of removal, imposition of punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. 5. Stoppage of increments without cumulative effect would cause hardship to an employee for some period and on completion of the same the increment would get restored. However, such punishment with cumulative effect would have far reaching effect on the emoluments and retirement benefits. The stipulated number of increments stand denied to the employee, for the rest of his career. In that view of the matter, we feel that the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, can be treated as adequate and proportionate. 6. We, therefore, partly allow the Writ Appeal and reduce the punishment imposed upon the appellant through the order under appeal, to that of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. However, it is made clear that on account of restoration of two increments, the appellant shall not be entitled to any backwages and the restoration shall be prospective in its effect. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of. Disposed off.