Madras High Court
P. Sekar S/O. Ponnan vs The Registrar, Tamil Nadu ... on 16 February, 2008
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra, K. Chandru
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" in O.A. No. 1608 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Such Original Application was filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of termination from service, which was ultimately dismissed without granting any relief.
2. The facts giving rise to filing of the Original Application and the present writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was working as Flock Man in the Animal Husbandry Department since 1983. At that time, the petitioner had not passed SSLC examination. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in SSLC examination as a private candidate during 1988 and furnished the mark sheet, wherein it was indicated that he had passed all subjects in SSLC examination. Thereafter, on the basis of such certificate, he applied for the post of Veterinary Livestock Inspector and was selected on 20.4.2000 and was sent for training and joined the post in April, 2001. The Department sent the certificate for verification to the Director of Government Examination. They informed the Department that the mark sheet sent to them does not tally with the marks entered in the Original Mark Register. Upon the receipt of such information, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated. In such departmental enquiry, the petitioner was examined and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.2.2003 holding that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the present writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that during the departmental enquiry, the authorities have simply relied upon the letter sent by the Director of Government Examinations without giving him any opportunity to prove the authenticity of the mark sheet and, therefore, the entire proceedings should be taken to be vitiated. It is further contended that the petitioner had merely produced the mark sheet given to him from the school in which he had privately appeared for the examination and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was responsible for submission of any forged mark sheet or incorrect mark sheet. It is further contended that, at any rate, the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate and at least for the post of Flock Man there is no requirement of SSLC examination and, therefore, the petitioner could have been reverted to the original post.
4. The Supreme Court vide its decision in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. has held that the principles of natural justice will depend on the nature of inquiry and the peculiar circumstances of each case. The relevant passages found in paras 17 20 & 21 may be usefully extracted below:
17. The students involved at the examination of secondary education are by and large minors but that by itself would not be a factor to hold that the students were unfairly treated at an inquiry conducted during the domestic inquiry. Assistance of an advocate to the delinquent at a domestic enquiry is not a part of the principles of natural justice. It depend on the nature of the inquiry and the peculiar circumstances and facts of a particular case. The regulations and the rules of enquiry specifically excluded the assistance of an advocate at the inquiry. Therefore, the omission to provide the assistance of a counsel at the inquiry is not violative of the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice furnished wealth of material particulars on which the tampering was alleged to be founded and gave the opportunity to each student to submit the explanation and also to adduce evidence, oral or documentary at the inquiry. Each student submitted the explanation denying the allegation....
20. Unless the rule expressly or by necessary implications excludes recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play does require recording of reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of the rules, but at the least, the record should disclose reasons. It may not be like a judgment. But the reasons may be precise.... The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in the order under challenge.
21. Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it affects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person.
5. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry report and the order of punishment are based on no evidence is not acceptable. In a departmental enquiry, technical rules of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable. On behalf of the Department, the letter of the Director of Government Examinations dated 7.11.2001 had been produced indicating that the marks reflected in the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner did not tally with the marks available from the original records. The petitioner himself was examined during the departmental enquiry and the questions put and the answers given are available on record. Except baldly stating that the petitioner has got mark sheet from the school, there is no other acceptable material or detail has been given. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he had actually passed and the report given by the Director of the Government Examinations is incorrect. Since the petitioner had submitted a mark sheet, which was found to be incorrect, it was within the subject knowledge of the petitioner as to the source of obtaining such mark sheet and it was for him to explain such aspect by adducing proper evidence. To that extent, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the charge has been found against him.
6. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate and at any rate the petitioner could have been allowed to continue in the lower post as Flock Man by ordering reduction in rank as a punishment, which is also a major penalty.
7. There is no dispute that for the initial post in which the petitioner had been appointed, there was no requirement of passing SSLC. Passing of SSLC is required only for the promotion to the post of Veterinary Livestock Inspector. The petitioner claims that he had simply forwarded the mark sheet which he had received. It is not in dispute that a criminal case is pending and therefore the question as to whether the petitioner had knowingly utilised the false mark sheet would be decided in such criminal case. Incidentally the post held by the petitioner was very insignificant post of Flock Man.
8. Keeping in view the fact that there is no finding nor any material to indicate that the petitioner had knowingly submitted a false mark sheet and such question would be ultimately decided in the pending criminal case and taking into consideration the social strata from which the petitioner comes, we feel in the interest of justice that punishment of termination of service is required to be modified and instead we direct that the petitioner shall be reverted to the post of Flock Man and shall not be considered for promotion to any other post. As a consequence of such order, it is further directed that the period during which the petitioner has not worked, shall not be counted for any purpose.
9. With the above modification relating to punishment, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that this order should not be construed as expressing any opinion in the pending criminal case which should be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observation made in this order. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner is convicted in such criminal case, at that stage, it would be open to the respondents to take further action in accordance with law and this reinstatement is obviously subject to the result of the pending criminal case. No costs.