Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 514 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. Nakshtramma

2021-08-09

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, K.SURESH REDDY

body2021
JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi) Order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Original Application No.887 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), directing the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent-employee into service and conduct enquiry strictly following Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), is challenged in this Writ Petition. 2. Mr.K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent-employee was initially working in Mandal Parishad Elementary School T-Sadam, having been selected as Secondary Grade Teacher in DSC-2000 in BC-B category. While in service, the respondent-employee applied for the post of School Assistant under Scheduled Caste quota, was appointed as School Assistant vide proceedings in Rc.No.3421/A1/A3/2001/SA (Service) 45, dated 20.01.2002. In doing so, the respondent-employee had submitted a Scheduled Caste Certificate purportedly issued in her favour by Mandal Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi on the premise that she had married a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. Upon selection, she resigned from her earlier post and joined as School Assistant in Zilla Parishad High School, Vengalamma Cheruvu, Puttaparthi Mandal, Ananthapur District on 23.01.2002. In the meantime, disputes cropped up between the respondent and her husband and on the complaint of the latter before Lok-Ayukta that the respondent-applicant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste Community, she was placed under suspension. Thereupon, by proceedings in Rc.No.8641/A3/2012, dated 08.03.2013, the respondent-employee was removed from service on the ground that the Caste Certificate obtained is a fraudulent one. 3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal/removal order, she approached the Tribunal in Original Application No.1753 of 2013 and the Tribunal, by order dated 22.02.2016, set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioners to conduct and conclude enquiry proceedings in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. Pursuant thereto, a charge memo was issued on 18.10.2016 inter alia alleging that she got appointed as School Assistant in Biological Science in DSC- 2001 on the strength of a bogus Scheduled Caste Certificate, even though she belongs to BC-B category. The respondent- employee submitted explanation to the charge memo on 14.11.2016 wherein she inter alia threw the blame of obtaining Scheduled Caste Certificate in her favour on her husband. However, she did not deny that the Scheduled Caste Certificate was a fake one. 4. The respondent- employee submitted explanation to the charge memo on 14.11.2016 wherein she inter alia threw the blame of obtaining Scheduled Caste Certificate in her favour on her husband. However, she did not deny that the Scheduled Caste Certificate was a fake one. 4. It may be pertinent to mention here that the District Collector, Ananthapur had cancelled her Scheduled Caste Certificate vide proceedings in Rc.No.MC3/2948/2010 dated 16.12.2012 which came to be challenged in Appeal by the respondent-employee. Considering the aforesaid materials including the explanation of the respondent-employee, vide proceedings in Rc.No.8641/A3/2012 dated 17.01.2017, the respondent was again removed from service with immediate effect. This order was challenged by the respondent-employee before the Tribunal in Original Application No.887 of 2017. By impugned order dated 28.04.2017, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal on the ground that the respondent-employee had not been given liberty to examine and cross examine witnesses and the procedure contemplated under the CCA Rules had not been followed. 5. Mr.K.Bheemarao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, submits that the appeal preferred by the respondent-employee against the order of the District Collector cancelling her Scheduled Caste Certificate had been dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government and as such order had become final. 6. Mr.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee, submits that as the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules has not been followed, the order of removal was illegal and was rightly set aside. In the alternative, it is contended that the respondent- employee may be permitted to continue in her earlier post in BC-B category. 7. We have considered the materials on record. 8. Admittedly the Scheduled Caste Certificate of the respondent-employee had been cancelled by the District Collector in 2012 which was affirmed by the Principal Secretary to Government on 05.01.2018. Under such circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent-employee could not continue to occupy the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. 9. It is settled law when an incumbent to a post does not possess basic qualifications for occupying the post, removal of such incumbent does not attract principles of natural justice. In this regard reference is made to the ratio in State of Rajasthan and another v. Kulwant Kaur, (2006) 9 SCC 564 and State of M.P and others v. Shyama Pardhi and others, (1996) 7 SCC 118 . 10. In this regard reference is made to the ratio in State of Rajasthan and another v. Kulwant Kaur, (2006) 9 SCC 564 and State of M.P and others v. Shyama Pardhi and others, (1996) 7 SCC 118 . 10. The Tribunal had lost sight of this fact particularly the nature of explanation offered by the respondent-employee wherein she admitted not to be a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. On the other hand, it was her defence that upon marriage to a member of the Scheduled Caste Community, her husband had procured the certificate and she was unaware of its authenticity. Principles of natural justice cannot be considered in a straitjacket formula and has to be applied according to the facts of each case. In view of the charge levelled against the respondent-employee and her plea admitting that the Scheduled Caste Certificate was not genuine, the very foundation of her claim to the said post had gone and accordingly, the disciplinary authority removed her from the post. 11. From this perspective, we are of the view adequate opportunity to defend herself had been extended to the respondent-employee in the facts of the case. We are also unable to accept the alternative prayer of the respondent- employee to permit her to join the earlier post from which she had voluntarily resigned. Although we may sympathize with the respondent/employee if her plea that she was mislead by her husband to submit the fake certificate is correct, but the same unfortunately shall not create any legal or equitable right in her favour to revert to her earlier post from which she had resigned. 12. For the aforesaid discussion, we allow the Writ Petition and set aside the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.887 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.