Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra Bank Officers Union And Anr. vs Andhra Bank And Ors. on 9 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALT654
ORDER B. Sri Atchutananda Swamy, J.
1. W.P.No. 15363 of 1996 has been filed by the Andhra Bank Officers' Union, hereinafter called 'the Union', represented by its General Secretary for quashing the proceedings of the General Manager, Andhra Bank in his letter No. 666/3/A1/T447, dated 26-12-1987 wherein the date of birth of the 2nd respondent (i.e.) G. Malakonda Reddy, working as General Manger Merchant Banking Division, Andhra Dank, Bombay, was changed from 1-7-1936 to 7-12-1937 on the basis of a decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam in O.S.No. 170/87, dated 31-8-1987 by contending that the said decree of the Court was obtained by playing fraud on the bank and sought for a declaration that the same is nullity in the eye of law by issuance of a writ of certiorari. A consequential direction to the bank is also sought to retire the 2nd respondent from service as per the date of birth entered in the service records of the 2nd respondent at the time of his joining the services.
2. Writ Petition No. 11873 of 1996 has been fifed by the Andhra Bank Depositors Welfare Association, hereinafter called 'the Association' seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 therein to investigate into the matter with regard to alteration of date of birth of Mr. Malakonda Reddy, who is arrayed as 4th respondent in this writ petition, and to take appropriate legal action against all the persons involved in the illegal activity.
3. As the subject matter under dispute is one and the same in these two writ petitions they were heard together and they can be disposed of by a common order.
4. In these writ petitions this Court is called upon to decide whether it is open to an employer to rectify the mistake committed by the employer when the fact of fraud played by the employee is brought to his notice. In other words whether the employer is estopped from rescinding the order altering the date of birth of an employee under fraudulent circumstances when the fact comes to his knowledge in the absence of such a power vested in him specifically.
5. The undisputed facts of this case are that Mr. Malakonda Reddy, the 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 15363/96 and 4th respondent in W.P. No. 11873/96, joined the service of Andhra Bank as clerk on 15-1-1961 prior to nationalisation and at the time he entered into the service his date of birth was entered in his service record as 1-7-1936 on the basis of the entries in his educational certificates filed by him before the bank. During the course of time, he earned several promotions and as on to-day he is working as General Manager in the bank. The bank was nationalised under Act 40 of 1980 and it became an instrumentality of the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is not indispute that the management of the bank is vested in the Board of Directors constituted as per the provisions of the Act. Under Section 19 of the Act, the Board of Directors are empowered to frame regulations governing the service conditions of its employees in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. In exercise of the said power the Board of Directors framed "Andhra Bank Officers Service Regulation, 1982", hereinafter called 'the regulations' , and they came into force w.e.f. 1st January, 1983.
Provision was made in the regulations with regard to period of service, age of retirement and also to retire an employee prematurely. Regulation 2(e) defines Competent Authority as the authority designated for the purpose by the Board. Chapter II deals with grades of the employees and their scales of pay. Regulation 4(1)(b) deals with senior management grade (i.e.) Scale-V and Scale-IV with which we are concerned in deciding the issue raised in these writ petitions. In Chapter-Ill, the officers working in the Bank as on that day- were fitted in the grades and categories enumerated in Chapter-II. The post of Assistant Manager in the scale of Rs. 1500/- to 2200/-, which Mr. Reddy held at the relevant point of time was fitted into Senior Management Grade-V. Chapter IV specifies the Competent Authorities for making appointment, confirmation, promotion, seniority and termination of the employees working in various grades specified in Chapter-11. As per Regulation 14(4) a Committee comprising Chairman and Managing Director, one Government Director and one Director of the Reserve Bank is constituted as Competent Authority. Regulation 19 deals with the age of retirement and Regulation 19(1) reads that the age of retirement of an officer of the bank shall be determined by the Board in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. As per the guidelines given by the Central Government, an officer/employee of the bank regarded as an award staff prior to 15th April, 1980 and promoted as an Officer/employee on or before 15th April, 1990 or directly recruited as officer/employee prior to 1-1-1973 has to retire on completion of sixty years of age. The officers/employees of the bank recruited as award staff on or after 15th April, 1980, or as an officer/employee on or after 1st January 1973 have to retire on completion of 58 years of age. Under the first proviso, the Board has discretionary power to retire an officer/ employee prematurely after completion of 58 years of age or after completion 25 of 30 years of total service as an officer/employee of the bank whichever is earlier on the basis of review made by a Special Committee constituted for the purpose.
6. All the Counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the Regulations do not provide for alteration of date of birth of an employee as entered at the time of entering the service during his tenure. On a direction given by this Court, the respondent bank filed a statement giving the particulars of the officers/employees of the bank who approached the bank for alteration of their date of birth. As per this statement, the bank did not consider any of the cases of its employees for alteration of their date of birth, except the one in question, after the bank was nationalised in the year 1980. It is also on record that some of its employees approached the Civil Court seeking declaration that their date of birth is different from the one that was entered in their service record and all those suits are being contested by the respondent bank. While several suits filed by different employees in different Munsif Courts were already dismissed, 7 suits are still pending on the file of different Munsif Courts and all of them are being contested. In fact, whenever a suit was decreed by a Munsif Court the bank carried the matter in appeal and it succeeded to the extent that is necessary in not altering the date of birth of the concerned employee. But in this case the respondent bank acted upon an ex parte decree given by the Prl. District Munsif,Visakhapatnam and altered the date of birth of Mr. Reddy from 1-7-1936 to 7-12-1937. Under what circumstances and how things were manipulated will be discussed later. For the present it is suffice to say that while the bank consistently resisted the claim of its employees for alteration of date of birth, it meakly acceded to the request of Mr. Reddy and no reasons are forthcoming from the bank for conferring undue favour on a particular individual. The action of the bank is nothing but arbitrary and arbitrariness is an anti-thesis to the scheme of the Constitution as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. After alteration of the date of birth Mr. Reddy earned some more promotions and as on to-day he is functioning as one of the General Managers of the bank, being the top executive post.
7. To complete the narration of the facts, it is now on record that the petitioner in W.P.No. 11873/96 made a complaint to the Central Government alleging that the date of birth of this officer was altered by the bank with the collusion of some of the officers who were looking after the service matters, of the employees of the bank at that point of time and as a result of the fraud played by them in collusion with Mr. Reddy, the respondent bank altered 20 his date of birth and the same requires thorough investigation into the whole affair, and the Central Government forwarded the same to the respondent bank who in turn again requested the Collector, Nellore district, from which place Mr. Reddy hails, to cause an enquiry into the genuineness of the certificate produced by Mr. Reddy in the civil proceedings and submit a report, by its letter dated 8-2-1996. When the fact of enquiry was published as a news item in the press. Mr. Reddy filed W.P.No. 1036/96 seeking a direction to the bank not to cause any enquiries into the genuiness of the certificate submitted by him and obtained ex parte orders staying enquiry, on 5-6-1996. Thereafter the Union filed WPMP No. 13375/96 seeking permission of the Court to come on record as 3rd respondent in the above writ petition and also filed WVMP No. 1251/96 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 5-6-1996. This Court after hearing the arguments of both the parties at length permitted the Union to come on record as 3rd respondent and also vacated the interim orders granted earlier, This order has become final. Subsequently the District Revenue Officer who enquired into the matter at the instance of the bank in his proceedings No. D. Dis. (D7) 1474/96, dated 10-6-1996 informed the bank in the following terms:
"The matter has been got enquired into. The date of birth of Sri G. Malakonda Reddy, who is said to be a native of Gowravaram has been entered as 1-7-1936 in the school records. He has confirmed the same while joining in bank service on 15-1-1961. The birth of Sri G. Malakonda Reddy has not been entered in the birth register of Gowravaram village for theyear, 1936. However,a perusal of the birth register of Gowravaram village for the year, 1937 reveals that Smt. Kanakamma said to be the mother of Sri G. Malakonda Reddy has given birth to a male child on 7-12-1937 registered at serial number 62 of the register, which he claims as his own. In Column 8 of the Register (against Sl.No. 62), the name of the child has been entered subsequently as Chinna Mala Kondaiah with a different ink which Sri G. Malakonda Reddy claims as his own after putting nearly 25 years of service in the bank based on the certified 5 copy of the entry issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavnli in the year, 1986.
In the absence of unimpeachable evidence to support the claim of Sri G. Malakonda Reddy, the verification certificate, vouchsafing that the certified copy issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavnli pertains to Sri G. Malakonda Reddy cannot be given at this distance of time."
8. From this it is evident that the birth extract submitted by Mr. Reddy is a forged one and on the basis of the said birth extract he obtained ex parte decree from the Civil Court as the respondent bank remained ex partc in the above suit. '
9. As the respondent bank failed to take up follow up action on the report of the District Revenue Officer even after vacating the interim orders granted earlier by this Court in the writ petition filed by Mr. Reddy, the Union filed the present writ petition to quash the proceedings of the General Manager in his Letter No. 666/3/A1/1447 dated 26-12-1987 wherein the date of birth of Mr. Ready was altered/ by issuance of writ of Certiorari as the same is not only illegal but obtained by playing fraud on the bank.
10. Mr. V.V.S. Rao appearing for the Union raised the following contentions:
(1) In the absence of Rule or Regulation permitting the Competent Authority to alter date of birth of an employee, the Competent Authority would have rejected the request of Mr. Reddy for alteration of his date of birth.
(2) Even assuming without admitting that the Competent Authority is having power to alter the date of birth, such a course is permissible when the request comes from the concerned employee within a reasonable time after joining the service. In this case Mr. Reddy made an application for alteration of his date of birth after putting 25 years of service and on the ground of laches also his application ought to have been rejected by the bank.
(3) The impugned order is passed at the instance of one K.R, Naik who was working as Executive Director while holding additional charge of the post of Chairman after the Chairman laid down by the office, which was not either placed before the Competent Authority or the Board of Directors for ratification. Hence the impugned order has to be ignored as the same was issued by an authority who is not competent to pass such order and the same is nullity in the eye of law. The whole decision making process is a result of collusion and fraud played by the Executive Director and some of the officers concerned at the time and, therefore, the same is not binding on the bank.
(4) It is a well settled principle that the decree of a Civil Court is only a piece of evidence but it cannot be the sole basis for alteration of date of birth. The action of the respondent bank in altering the date of birth of Mr. Reddy on the basis of the Civil Court decree is nothing but non-application of mind by the competent authority and on that ground also the order is vitiated.
(5) As the report of the District Revenue Officer clinchingly established the fact of fraud played upon the Court by Mr. Reddy, the judgment and decree obtained by him does not bind either that Court or any other Court as it is a nullity in the eye of law and it need not be set aside or reversed specifically.
11. Sri Y. Suryanarayana appearing for the Association adopted the arguments of Mr. Rao. Sri Srinivasa Murthy, appearing for the bank placed the entire factual and legal position before the Court and submitted that the bank will abide by any orders that are likely to be passed by this Court in these writ petitions.
12. Sri V.V. Ramana, appearing for Mr. Reddy was not able to dispute the facts of the case but tried to resist the claim of the petitioners in the above writ petitions purely on technicalities. His main contention is that the petitioner-Union has no locus standi as the Union represents the officers up to M.M. Grade-III level and it cannot represent the officers of Senior Management Grade including the top executive Grade Scale-VII to which Mr. Reddy belongs. Adverting to the grounds on which the Union has taken up the cause for filing the present writ petition viz., (1) continuation of Mr. Reddy will block the service aspects of other eligible officers in mattery of promotion and (2) Mr. Reddy is involved in CDI case relating to serious mis-conduct and the continuation of such an officer is detrimental to the interest of the bank, the learned Counsel for Mr. Reddy submits that these grounds do not give arise to any cause to the Union to maintain the writ petition. He elaborates his arguments by contending that alteration of date of birth is purely between the employee and the employer and the aggrieved party alone can represent his grievance before the bank or the Court. The Union did not give the names or particulars of the officers who are likely to be affected by the alteration of the date of birth of Mr. Reddy. It cannot also claim that the writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation exposing the cause of un-represented or under-represented classes of persons. The other ground that Mr. Reddy is involved in CDI enquiry cannot be a ground for seeking a direction to the bank to retire him as per the date of birth entered in the service record at the time of his joining the bank. He nextly contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay as the writ petition was filed in the year 1996 though the date of birth of Mr. Reddy was altered way back in 1987 and the same is within the knowledge of the officers of the bank as the same is evident from the seniority list of officers published by the bank every year. He also contended that fraud or collusion cannot form a ground for judicial review of an administrative action while mala fides against a particular officer may form good ground. He also contended that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on all the parties unless it is set aside by a competent court and the respondent is duty bound to implement the same as it is not avoidable decree and the question of acceptance or rejection by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director does not arise. Lastly he contended that there need not be any regulation for submitting an application seeking correction of the date of birth and in the absence of specific provision in the Regulations the question of competence of an officer to act upon the decree does not arise.
13. In the light of the submissions made by the respective Counsel, first I would like to take up the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner-Union is a registered Trade Union and bye-law No. 3 (a) deals with the membership of the union, which reads as follows:
"All Officers, permanent, probationary, on contract or otherwise in the employment of the bank are eligible for membership. An officer seeking enrolment in the Union shall make an application in the prescribed form and shall pay the admission fee, subscription and other levies required of him."
14. From this it is evident that all the officers, irrespective of the grade in which they are working, are eligible for enrolment as a member of the union subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Except this, there is no provision anywhere in the bye-laws prohibiting any officers working in any grade for becoming a member of the union. Secondly the petitioner union got itself impleaded as 3rd respondent in W.P.No. 10369/96 filed by Mr. Reddy seeking stay of enquiry and at the instance of the union the ex pane order dated 5-6-1996 was vacated by this Court and it has become final. Hence, it is too late in the day to contend that the petitioner union has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Though there may be some force in the contention of the respondent's counsel, the reasons given in the affidavit by the union in filing the writ petition cannot clothe the union to file the writ petition. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that of late many public servants on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute of their date of birth recorded in the service records. While refreshing the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal directing the alteration of date of birth of the respondent in "Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubnknran", AIR 1993 SC 2642 the Supreme Court held as follows:
" An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt 40 with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below, him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be. held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible."
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in another case in "Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dhmbandhu Majumdar and Anrs.", 1995 (2) An.W.R. 74 (SC), , 1995 (1) ALT 52 (D.N.) held as follows:
"Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of his juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due."
Their Lordships further held:
"This entry in the service record made on the basis of the employee's statement cannot be changed unilaterally at the sweet will of the employee except in the manner permitted by service conditions or the relevent rules. Here again considerations for a change in the date of birth may be diverse and the employer would be entitled to view it not merely from the angle of there being a genuine mistake but also from the point of its impact on the service in the establishment."
Their Lordships further observed:
"Would revision of his date of birth after a long lapse of time upset the promotional chances of others in the establishment who may have joined on the basis that the incumbent would retire on a given case opening up promotional avenues for others."
Their Lordships in another case in "Lakhi Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.", , while adverting to the plea of locus standi held as follows:
"A person whose chance of promotion is likely to affect adversely by virtue of the action on the part of the respondent in expunging the remarks against his senior colleague is entitled to sue that the Government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the senior colleague and that expungment of the adverse remarks should be cancelled."
15. From the above Judgment, it can be seen that the continuation of an employee beyond his superannuation period will affect the promotional avenues of not only the officers working in the grade but also every promotion will have a chain reaction perculating into the lower cadres also. In this case, the petitioner-Union is recognised as a majority Union by the respondent- bank and one of the objects of the Union is to see that the management won't confer undue advantage on any officer or group of officers to the detriment of others. Further the Civil Court simply decreed the suit without examining the issue from the view point of the other officers that are likely to be affected in the event of alteration of date of birth Mr. Reddy. Nextly, it should be kept in mind that the respondent bank while contesting the claims of other employees for alteration of date of birth if necessary by filing appeals, in this case simply altered the date of birth on the basis of an ex parte decree obtained by Mr. Reddy at the instance of one K.R. Nayak while holding additional charge of the post of Chairman & Managing Director for a brief period who has no authority to alter the date of birth in the light of the staff regulations as the same is vested with the competent Authority constituted under the Regulations.
16. In the light of the ratio decidendi laid down by the Supreme Court, it can be safely held that alteration of date of birth is no more an issue between the employer and the employee but is having an overall impact on the service in the establishement Accordingly, the contention of Mr. V.V. Ramana on this aspect is rejected.
17. Coming to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on public interest litigation,
18. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in "the Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 892" explained the scope of public interest litigation as follows:
"In a private action, the litigation is bipolar; two opposed parties are locked in a confrontational controversy which pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events unlike in public action. In contrast, the strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed in public interest litigation (PIL) and a broad rule is evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bond fide and having sufficient interest in wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper; since the dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion like actio popularis of Roman Law whereby any citizens could bring such an action in respect of public delict."
19. In a recent judgment in "The Scholars And Teachers Action Committee (STAC) v. Andhra University Rep. By Its Registrar, 1992 (2) An.W.R. 477" on the question of locus standi in maintaining a writ petition by an un-registered association of teachers, a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:
"The concept of locus standi has undergone a radical change in recent times and the traditional view that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered legal injury or whose legal right is violated, is relaxed and it is held that any person/persons having sufficient interest in the proceeding and acting bona fide in public interest can move the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the first petitioner which is the Action Committee of Scholars and Teachers of the Andhra University and the other petitioners, who are said to be the aspirants for some of the posts in question, have no locus standi to file the writ petition questioning the validity of the selections."
20. Keeping the law laid down by the Superior Courts with regard to the locus standi and the facts of this case in mind. I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner Association is entitled to file the present writ petition questioning the alteration of date of birth of the 2nd respondent both on the ground that the promotional avenues of its members are effected and also on the ground that the Union came forward to expose a public wrong and sought for its rectification.
21. Coming to the plea of laches raised by Mr. Reddy. It is true that the seniority list of the officers published from time to time after 1987 discloses the altered date of birth of him, but, on that ground he cannot contend that the Union is aware of the circumstances under which he obtained a decree from a Civil Court and the fraud played by the officers concerned in altering his date of birth. Now, it is on record that the fraud played by him in getting his date of birth altered came to light during the inquiry conducted by the District Revenue Officer, Nellore from which District Mr. Reddy hails, at the instance of the bank on a complaint given by the petitioner Association in the second Writ Petition to the Central Government When once the inquiry unfurled the fraud played by Mr. Reddy, the petitioner-Union took up the cause of exposing the fraud played by him and in fact at the instance of the union the ex parte order obtained by him staying the inquiry by the District Revenue Officer was vacated. It is a well settled principle that unless and until the contra is established, all acts done by the authorities in discharge of their official duties have to be presumed to be done in accordance with law and in good faith. It is not the case of Mr. Reddy that the petitioner-Union is aware of the circumstances under which the date of birth was altered. Hence, merely on the ground that the seniority list of the officers published by the bank disclosed the altered date of birth, Mr. Reddy cannot contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. On the other hand, the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner-Union has not wasted even a minute after coming to know of the facts of the case. Even assuming without admitting that there is some delay in filing this writ petition as the petitioner is exposing a public wrong done by the respondent bank at the instance of the 2nd respondent. I cannot throw them away from exposing the cause on the ground of laches.
22. In "STAC v. Andhra University, 1996(2) An. W.R. 477" commenting on the observations of the learned single Judge:
"It is a well accepted principle of Constitutional law that a Writ Petition filed beyond six months from the date of cause of action is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and sheer delay."
The Division Bench observed as follows:
"On the contrary it is well established that the question of delay is not a rule of law, but, a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts, there is no upper or lower limit for the delay and no period of limitation is prescribed in any law for filing Writ Petition."
23. Further, Sri K. Sreenivasa Murthy rightly contended that the benefit of continuing in the service under the impugned order will accure to Mr. Reddy only on 01-07-1996, as he is entitled to continue in service as per the date of birth entered in his service record till then and whereas the present W.P. was filed even before that date. Hence, it cannot be said that there are any laches on the part of petitioner-Union.
24. Hence, the second ground urged on behalf of Mr. Reddy also falls to ground.
25. Now, I will consider whether the action of the respondent-bank in altering the date of birth is in accordance with law and whether it was done in good faith. Chapter-IV of the Regulations provides that all appointments and promotions to the officers grade shall be made by the competent authority constituted for the purpose as per the guidelines given by the Government, if any. In this case, for the first time a legal notice was sent from Visakapatnam on 09-05-1986 seeking alteration of date of birth by stating that Mr. Reddy, in a family conversation while talking about his future promotional prospects in the service came to know that his date of birth as entered in the service register i.e., 01-07-1936 is not correct and sought for alteration of the same as 07-12-1937. It should be kept in mind that at the time of sending notice Mr. Reddy was working as Assistant General Manger in the respondent-bank at Visakhapatnam. On the legal notice Mr. Nayak, Executive Director by his noting observed on 10-5-1986 as follows:
"He will have to get Court's Order for changing date of birth. We cannot change it on the basis of lawyer's notice."
26. On the basis of the endorsement one Mr. V.S.R. Murthy, working as Deputy General Manger in staff Department, Central Officer addressed a Letter No. 666/3/A1/515, dated 03-06-1986, which is extracted hereunder:
"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX We write to inform that basing on your letter it would be difficult for us to change his date of birth in the records of the bank. As such we request you to submit a Decree and Judgment, order from the Court of Law in original in support of changing the date of birth of your client in our records."
27. Now, it is on record that by that time the requests of Mr. V. Subramanyam, Mr. K.S.K. Prasad and Mr. D.V. Prasad were turned down by the bank and they filed civil suits in various Courts and all of the were being contested by the bank. In the circumstances, it is not known how the Executive Director or Dy.G.M. is competent to inform Mr. Reddy to submit a decree and judgment of a Civil Court in original in respect of change of date of birth of Mr. Reddy. Having received the said communication the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No. 170/87 on the file of P.D.M. Court at Visakapatnam. In the suit the Chairman of the bank, Government of A.P. represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Director of School Education A.P., Hyderabad and Andhra University represented by its Registrar, Waltair were made party defendants. It is not known how the Collector, Visakhapatnam can speak about the authenticity of the alleged date of birth extract given by M.R.O., Kavali, Nellore. The summons sent in the case were received in the Central Office on 02-03-1987, on seeing the suit papers, the then Chairman made the following endorsement on a separate sheet.
"While we should abide by court notices/directions, I would like to know why Andhra Bank or Chairman and Managing Director should be impleaded in this case? Has the bank taken a stand in this different from what was originally noted as per rules ? If the interested party wants to establish his date of birth, is it not for him to seek redressal from any competent Authority? How do we come in this stage ? General Manager (P&D) to look into this atonce."
28. On 03-03-1987, Mr. R Srinivasa Rao, General Manager (P&D) addressed a letter to the Asst. General Manager, Zonal Office, Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam, who is none other than Mr. Reddy, requesting him to forward a copy of the affidavit filed before the Court to enable the bank to file suitable counter in the case. On the draft of that letter Mr. V. Bhaskar Rao, Personnel Manager, was instructed as follows:
"In the meanwhile enter our appearance in the Court".
Thereafter, a written statement was also prepared in the name of B. Srinivasa Rao, and when the vakalat was put up for signature of C & MD, he observed as extracted supra (*). Thereafter, what transpired in the Central Office is not known as the file is silent till the receipt of the representation of Mr. Reddy, dt. 25-9-1987.
29. Having obtained an ex parte decree Mr. Reddy submitted a representation to C & MD on 5-9-1987 enclosing a Photostat copy of the judgment and decree of the civil Court seeking alteration of his date of birth and the same was received in the Central Office on 20-10-1987. From the judgment it is seen that except Andhra University no other defendant con tested the suit. All other defendants remained ex parte.
30. Ultimately by judgment and decree dated 31-8-1987 the District Munsif decreed the suit and held as follows:
"The first defendant has not placed any material before the Court to show that the date of birth as entered by the plaintiff in the service records cannot be altered by virtue of its rules or bye-laws which are binding on its employees. If the first defendant appears and says before the Court that the date of birth as entered in the service registers cannot be altered by virtue of its conduct rules, is a different matter and the Court has to be considered on that aspect alone. At the same time, the court cannot confine that a particular rule is applicable to the plaintiff's bank in the absence of the first defendant before the Court. There is no data before the Court to show as to the rules which are applicable to the employees of the bank. The services of Government services are regulated as per the Fundamental Rules and there is no material before the Court as to the rules which are to be governed or followed by the employees of the 1st defendant."
31. When, the Court categorically recorded a finding that the respondent did not place any material to show that the date of birth entered by the plaintiff in the service register cannot be altered by virtue of its rules or bye-laws which are binding on its employees, any prudent man will file either a review application or carry the matter in appeal. It is not known why an appeal was not filed when the regulations of the bank do not permit alteration of the date of birth and even the guidelines given by Indian Banks' Association is to that effect and why they have taken action to alter the date of birth on the basis of an ex parte decree given by the civil Court by holding that it is the bounden duty of the defendants to incorporate the date of birth in the service register of that individual as he remained ex parte. Having received the Photostat copy of the judgment, an officer of the bank made the following endorsement;
"What is I.B.A guidelines or Banking Department, Finance Ministry guidelines on this ? "
32. The Central Office has put up an office note in No. Staff (A1)/174, dated 26-10-1987, which is extracted here under:
"It may please be noted that as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Banks' Association, once the date of birth furnished by an employee at the time of his appointment is accepted and entered in the service record by the appropriate authority, the same shall not be subject to any alteration. However, it was further clarified by I.B.A. that where on individual issues rulings of Courts are given, the bank will have to abide by the same."
33. The endorsement of all the offices are very creptic and recommended for alteration of date of birth without giving any reasons for making any exception in the case of this officer. This file reached Mr. Nayak, E.D. on 2-12-1987 and he did not pass any orders till the C & MD retired on 21-12-1987.Ina fax message the Joint Secretary, Banking Department informed the Chairman as follows:
"On demiting your office today as the C & MD, Andhra Dank, on completion of your tenure, Sri K.R. Nayak, E .C ., Andhra Bank may be advised to lookafter the current duties of your office."
34. Mr. Nayak, on the very next day i.e., on 22-12-1987 passed an order, "We abide by Court orders." On 26-12-1987 the General Manager of the Bank Mr. Sreenivasa Rao in his proceedings No. 666/3/A1/1447, informed Mr. Reddy that his date of birth in the bank records has been changed from 1-7-1936 to 7-12-1937.
35. I will be adverting to the events that have taken place in the Central Office at the time of filing of the suit by Mr. Reddy, while dealing with the plea of fraud raised by the petitioner Union.
36. For the present, it is sufficient to state that except the decree of civil Court not even a scrap of paper was filed by Mr. Reddy to establish with cogent evidence his date of birth.
37. A Division Bench of this Court in "The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar (Administration) v. R. Jagan Mohan, 1993 ALT Supp. (1) 256" while considering the evidentiary value of a decree of a civil Court in a matter relating alteration of date of birth observed as follows:
"The decree of the civil Court is only a piece of evidence which was taken into consideration along with the other material by the second respondent. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the High Court is bound by the decree of the civil Court and to record/ alter his date of birth in his service register."
38. In this case basing on the judgment of civil Court, only the date of birth of Mr. Reddy is altered and the same amounts to non-application of mind before passing the impugned order.
The Supreme Court while deprecating the practice of filing applications for correction of date of birth almost at the fag-end of the service in "Union of India v. Harnam Sing, " observed as follows:
"A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the Courts and Tribunals."
39. In "Union of India v. Mrs. Saroj Bala, " their Lordships observed as follows:
"It is unthinkable that having been born in an educated family and having remained in service for 18 years she discovered that her date of birth would be wrong."
40. Stating so, their Lordships set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh directing the alteration of the date of birth of the respondent.
41. In the present case, Mr. Reddy joined service in the year 1961 prior to nationalisation and sends legal notice on 25-9-1986, i.e., nearly after putting 25 years of service and that too after reaching the position of Asst. G.M. (Sr. Management Grade Scale-IV) seeking alteration of date of birth. In the legal notice itself he stated that in a family talk with regard to his promotional prospects in the service his father informed that his date of birth was 7-12-1937 and not 1-7-1936 as entered in the service register of the bank. Even this fact was also not taken into consideration while considering the request of Mr. Reddy for alteration of his date of birth. Now, it is on record that on a complaint made by the petitioner-Association in the 2nd Writ Petition, at the instance of the bank, the D.R.O. conducted an inquiry and submitted his report. In the report he stated as follows:
"However, a perusal of the birth register of Gowravaram village for the year, 1937 reveals that Smt. Kanakamma said to be the mother of Sri G. Malakonda Reddy has given birth to a male child on 7-12-1937 registered at serial number 62 of the register, which he claims as his own. In column 8 of the register (against SI.No.62), the name of the child has been entered subsequently as Chinna Malakondaiah with a different ink which Sri G. Malakonda Reddy claims as his own after putting nearly 25 years of service in the bank based on the certified copy of the entry issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali in the year, 1986.
42. In the absence of cogent evidence in support of the claim of Mr. Reddy the certified copy issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kavali pertains to G. Malakonda Reddy cannot be given at this distance of time.
43. In fact the 4th defendant i.e., the Andhra University raised the same contention before the District Munsif who turned down the objection by simply stating that in the absence of the evidence of the defendants, the version of P.W.2 and the document filed by him should be accepted to be true, which ultimately proved to be a fabricated document.
44. When an objection was taken by the Counsel appearing for the University with regard to the names mentioned in Ex.A-1 and A-2 which relate to the birth of Mr. Reddy and his elder brother, the Court observed that it may not be possible for the parents to give the names of the children by the time of birth. It does not mean that they cannot give the names by the time of birth. Stating so he accepts the alleged certified copy of the birth extract filed on behalf of Mr. Reddy without even summoning the original, which now stands tampered as per the report of D.R.O. In spite of the above infirmities in the judgment of the civil Court, the officers concerned altered the date of birth.
In the light of the above factual background, it has to be seen whether the contention of the petitioner-Union that Mr. Reddy got his date of birth altered by playing fraud on the Court as well as the bank is sustainable in law ?
45. On the Law of Fraud and Mistake, Mr. Kerr in Chapter-I expressed that Fraud vitiates every thing, even judgment and orders of the Court. In Chapter-VI the author summarised the principles, after analising various English judgments obtained by fraud, as follows:
"A judgment or decree obtained by fraud upon a Court does not bind such Court or any other, and its nullity upon this ground, though it has not been set aside or reversed, before the Judicature, Acts could be alleged in a collateral proceeding, xxxxxxx In applying this rule, it matters not whether the judgment impugned has been, pronounced by an inferior or by the highest Court of judicature in the realm, but in all cases alike it is competent for every Court, whether superior or inferior, to treat as a nullity any judgment which can be clearly shown to have been obtained by manifest fraud."
46. With regard to the standard of proof, the author relying on a judgment in "Stikeman v. Dawson, (1847) 1 De G & SM 105" observed as follows;
"Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but in many cases it is the only proof that can be adduced. In maters that regard the conduct of men the certainty of mathematical demonstration cannot be excepted or required. Like much of human knowledge on all subjects, fraud may be inferred from facts that are established. Care must be taken not to draw the conclusion hastily from premises that will not warrant it; but a rational belief should not be discarded because it is not conclusively made out. If the facts established afford a sufficient and reasonable ground for drawing the inference of fraud, the conclusion to which the proof tends must, in the absence of explanation, or contradiction, be adopted, xxxxxxxxx Fraud may be proved from the acts and conduct of a party as well as from his written declaration. The motives with which an act is done may be, and often are, ascertained and determined by circumstances connected with the transaction, and the parties to it. x x x x x x x x x Though the proof of fraud rests on the party who alleges it, and in the absence of any special relation from which influence is presumed the burden of proof is on the person impeaching the transaction, (b) yet circumstances may exist to shift the burden of proof from the party impeaching a transaction to the party upholding it. if the evidence establishes a prima facie case of fraud, or shows that an instrument is false in any material part, the burden of showing that the transaction was fair lies upon the party who seeks to uphold."
47. In "Lazarus Estates, Ltd. v. Beaste, All England Law Reports 1956 (1) 341" Lord Denning speaking for the Court of Appeal observed as follows:
"No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find frauds unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever."
48. Justice P. A. Chodhary, as he then was, in "Pidathala Shyam Rao and Ors., In re.", 1984 (2) ALT 386, 1984 (2) An.W.R. 429 while rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the Joint Collector erred in exercising his powers under Section 166-13 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act belatedly in the year 1983 for cancelling the assignments in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they are not land less poor persons, observed as follows:
"Where no innocent third party interests have crept in and where the nature of fraud or misrepresentation is so glaring and patent crying out for judicial correction and where the assignee himself was a privy to the fraud played on the State, it becomes the duty of the authority to take action immediately the fraud is detected and discovered."
49. In "M. Bhaskaran v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100" while rejecting the plea of estoppel raised by the employees, who obtained employment in Railways on the basis of bogus and forged labour service cards, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"If once such fraud is detected, the appointment orders themselves which were found to be tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of employees, were liable to be recalled and were atleast voidable at the option of the employer concerned. This is precisely what has happened in the present case. Once the fraud of the respondents in getting such employment was detected, the respondents were proceeded against in departmental enquiries and were called upon to have their say and thereafter have been removed from service."
50. Their Lordships also rejected the appeal of the Counsel for the employees that after passage of such a long time they should not be thrown out of employment and held:
"It is difficult to agree with this contention. By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity, xxxxxxxx Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute between the parties, if any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents, then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted."
51. In this case also the Counsel appearing for the respondents was not able to counter the contentions of the petitioner-Union on merits. But what all he says is that at this length of time the bank having accepted the decree of the civil Court is estopped from recinding it by raising the plea of estoppel. Such a contention was rejected by the Supreme Court in the above judgment.
52. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in "S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. jagannnath and Ors., (D.N.)" held that non-production of a vital document and even non-mentioning of it at the trial is fraud on the Court, and observed as follows:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal, observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three Centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/ decree by the first Court or by the highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."
53. Their lordships also rejected the plea of finality of litigation by observing as follows:
"It becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused, xx xxxxxxxx. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court."
54. Keeping the above facts and principle in mind, now, I proceed to examine whether the petitioner-Union is able to establish the fraud played by Mr. Reddy in getting his date of birth altered. Whether the birth extract produced by him before the District Munsif Court. Visakapatnam is a genuine one or a forged one, in the light of the report submitted by the D.R.O, I need not express any opinion in this Writ Petition. At present, I would like to concentrate on the aspect of obtaining a decree from the civil Court and in getting the date of birth altered. It is the case of the bank that except in the case of Mr. Reddy in no other case they ever altered the date of birth or accepted a decree of the civil Court produced by the employees in support of their claims. They have rejected the claim of one Mr. Shankar, the then General Manager of the Andhra Bank on the basis of a decree obtained by him from District Munsif Court, Tirunelvelu and filed appeal before the Addl Sub-Court, Tirunelvelu and got the decree and judgment modified to the extent of dismissing the suit as regards. The relief of mandatory injunction, against the bank. In the counter filed in W.P.No. 10369/96, by Mr. Reddy questioning the proposed enquiry on the birth extract submitted by him, adverting to Mr. Sankamm's case they stated that" the bank did not agree to abide by the Court decree and preferred appeal." Having conferred a favour on Mr. Reddy way back in 1987, it is not known why the same favour was turned down by the bank in respect of Mr. Sankaram. In fact, in no case they accepted the Court decree either prior to Reddy's case or subsequently till this date. From this, it is evident that the conduct of the officials in Reddy's case is unexplainable.
55. Secondly, after receipt of the legal notice sent by Mr. Reddy, while the General Manager observed that it will be a bad precedent, it is Mr. Nayak that gave the lead to Mr. Reddy to approach a civil Court and obtain a decree to that effect, without placing the legal notice before the C & MD or the Board of Directors which is the highest policy making body concerning the affairs of the bank. On that Dy.G.M. addresses a letter to Mr. Reddy to submit a decree and judgment of a Court of law in original by his letter dated 3-6-1986.
56. After receipt of the suit summons though the Chairman raised certain querry and directed the G.M. (P & D) to look into the case at once, the file was never circulated to him till he laid down the office. In fact the written statement prepared in the case was not placed before him apprehending that he may go deep into the matter before executing vakalat, in which event, the suit itself would have been dismissed in all probability.
57. On 3-3-1987, the G.M. adresses a letter to Mr. Reddy to forward a copy of the affidavit filed before the Court to enable the bank to file counter. The file maintained in the central office did not indicate that the bank has taken any steps thereafter to contest the case.
58. From the judgment of the civil Court it is seen that except Andhra University all other Defendants remained ex parte and the civil Court was emboldened to decree the suit mainly on the ground that the respondent bank has not placed any material before the Court to show that the date of birth as entered by the plaintiff in the service register cannot be altered by virtue of the rules or bye-laws which are binding on its employees. A reading of ... the said judgment, which was obtained in a record time of 6 months from the date of institution of the suit, clearly indicates that as the 1st defendant i.e., Andhra Bank remained ex parte, the version given by Mr. Reddy has to be accepted with regard to the correctness of his date of birth.
59. After obtaining the decree Mr. Reddy adressed a letter to the C & MD on 5-9-1987 seeking alteration of date of birth by enclosing a photostat copy of the judgment of the civil Court. Once again, it is seen that though the bank is persistently refusing the requests of its employees for alteration of date of birth, they acted upon at photostat copy of the judgment even without obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and decree in this case contrary to their letter dated 03-06-1986. The civil Court gave decree on the basis of a certified copy of the alleged date of birth and relying on the evidence of Mr. Reddy and his father without summoning the original or without examining any witnesses to prove the entries.
60. Further, the note submitted by the bank shows that the guidelines issued by the Indian Banks' Association did not allow alteration of date of birth of an employee entered in the service register at the time of his appointment. When the Court decreed the suit mainly on the ground that the bank remained ex parte and did not put-forth its case or produced any rules or guidelines prohibiting alteration of date of birth. Any prudent person would have immediately taken a decision to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In fact, in all the suits filed by the employees, the bank always contested the suits and carried the matter in appeal when the decision sent against the bank. In this case even assuming for a moment that the bank remained ex parte when the Court gave a decree on the ground that the bank did not put-forth its case and contested the claim, of Mr. Reddy, in the normal course they would have preferred an appeal in this case. But, as observed supra they acted on a photostat copy of the judgment and corrected the date of birth of Mr. Reddy.
61. The file reached Mr. Nayak on 2-12-1987 with the recommendation of his subordinates for implementing the decree of the Court. But he did not move his little fingure in the matter till the C & MD retired on 21-12-1987 and the very next day he passed the orders "We abide by Court orders."
62. Here, it has to be seen that as per the regulations the C & MD is the final authority to take the decision in the matter with regard to the affairs of the bank on the administration side and as far as the service conditions are concerned it is the competent authority that was constituted under Chapter-IV of the Regulations. In this case the alteration of date of birth of a particular individual officer contrary to the policy of the bank that was followed till then becomes a policy matter and it has to be taken at the highest level. In the instant case Mr. Nayak was advised only to look after the current duties of the office of the C & MD i.e., for the purpose of carrying, on day to day administration, but all the powers were not conferred on him. As the alteration of date of birth is in the realm of a policy matter, Mr. Nayak is not expected to take a decision in that capacity while holding the additional charge of the office of the C & MD to look after the day to day affairs only. His noting also do not show that he passed the orders in the capacity of C & MD. Even assuming without admitting that Mr. Nayak is empowered to pass orders on this file, any prudent man would at least place the matter before the competent authority constituted, which is empowered to make appointments and promotions as per the regulations for retification Admittedly, alteration of date of birth means extending the service of an employee from the date of superannuation and it is only the competent authority that can take a decision in the matter. Even if Mr. Nayak entertained any doubt, had he acted bonafidely, he would have at lest placed the matter before the Board of Directors, the highest policy making body of the bank to take a decision. But, in the instant case on the basis of the orders passed by Mr. Nayak the date of birth of Mr. Reddy is altered.
63. From the above coupled with the action of the officers involved in the decision making level which was already adverted to, in detail supra, the action of Mr. Reddy in filing a suit at Visakhapatnam, where he was working as Asst.G.M., leaving the competence court in whose jurisdiction he has allegedly born, and making the District Collector, Visakhapatnam as party defendant leaving the District Collector, Nellore, who would have been in a position to speak about the authenticity/correctness of the alleged birth extract produced by Mr. Reddy, and in obtaining an ex parte decree by producing an alleged certified copy of the birth extract without submitting the original will lead to an irresistible conclusion that he got his date of birth altered by 20 playing fraud on the bank with the help of some officers who formed into a coterie to help him. Assuming for a moment that the fraud played by Mr. Reddy is not established beyond doubt, at least the petitioner-Union was able to produce sufficient material to show that the decision taken by the officers concerned is unconscionable and is in bad faith. The burden of proof shifts on Mr. Reddy to prove that the bank acted in accordance with rules and neither any irregularity nor any illegality was committed by the bank in taking the decision. The Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that he has no material to place before the Court that the decision on of the bank is perfectly in order, and he is not in a position to offer any explanation on the conduct of the officers involed in the decision making process. Hence, the contention of Mr. Reddy that the respondent bank being a party to the civil proceedings is bound by the decree of the civil Court cannot hold good as the bank is not aware of the circumstances under which he obtained a decree from the civil Court and Mr. Reddy could get his date of birth altered by playing fraud on the management. When once such a fraud is detected the very order itself is liable to be recalled as fraud unravels every thing, as held by English Courts as well as Superior Courts of this country.
64. The issue can be looked from another angle also. As per the regulations, it is the competent authority, comprising of C & MD and a Director from R.B.I. and another from Central Government, is empowered to take decisions in respect of service matters of the employees, and when the decision was taken by Mr. Nayak the competent authority constituted for the purpose is very much in existence. Even otherwise as the alteration of date of birth of Mr. Reddy is contrary to the policy consistently followed by the bank happened to be a policy decision the matter would have been placed before the Board of Directors at least for ratification. As Mr. Nayak and the coterie of officers failed to place the matter before any of the two authorities concerned, it has to be safety presumed that a decision was taken by an authority which is not competent to take a decision and it is now well settled that any decision taken by an officer or a body, which is not empowered to take a decision, cannot bind the institution and the person who is likely to be benefitted by such an order cannot compel the authority to act upon on such a decision. Hence, the principles of res judicata or estoppel raised by Mr. Reddy cannot be countenanced.
65. Lastly, the date of birth of Mr. Reddy was altered only on the basis of a decree of civil Court. As held by this Court in jagan Mohan's case (7 supra) the decree of a civil Court is only a piece of evidence, but it cannot be the sole basis for alteration of date of birth. Again this is nothing but non- application of mind. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
66. In the light of the view taken by me, I need not consider other arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this case. In the result a Writ of Certiorate is issued quashing the order in Lr. No. 666/3/A1/1447, dated 26-12-1987, wherein the date of birth of Mr. G.M.K. Reddy was altered from 1-7-1936 to 7-12-1937 on the ground that the same was obtained by playing fraud on the bank as well as on the ground of competency of the officers concerned in passing the order and on the ground of non application of mind. Respondent bank shall take steps to retire him from service forthwith without any further loss of time.
67. By the time Mr. Reddy entertained the idea of getting his date of birth altered he is holding the position of Asst.G.M. in Senior Management Grade Scale-IV which is next to the top executive grade in the hierarchy of the officers of the bank and the method adopted by him in getting his date of birth altered is unbecoming of a Senior executive holding a responsible position in the bank. Instead of observing high standards of character, integrity and calibre and setting an example to his subordinates and inspire confidence of the public in the system of administration followed in this Country, he degraded to the extent of playing fraud on the bank to get extension of service by few more months. Such a trend on the part of the Senior executive has to be deprecated in the strongest possible language and such trends should be nipped in the bud, so that at least others may not repeat such a reprehensible conduct. If any lenient view is taken, it will be not only a bad precedent, but amounts to putting premium on dishonesty.
68. Hence, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petitions with exemplary costs to be recovered from Mr. Reddy, the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition No. 15363/96, and 4th respondent in Writ Petition No. 11873/96. He shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the petitioners in both the cases and Rs. 5,000/- to the Andhra Dank towards costs. In all, he is liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions as well as the bank.
69. Before parting with the cases, I have elaborately dealth with the role played by the officers concerned involved in the decision making process which ultimately turned to be a public wrong. Hence, I hope and trust that the bank will initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers concerned including Mr. Reddy for production of a false and fabricated birth extract in the light of the report of D.R.O., Nellore in accordance with law, duly following the principles of natural Justice and punish them suitably. If they fail to take the remedial measures by punishing the erring officials, the petitioner-Union, I hope, will take up the matter to see that the guilty are punished.