HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28515 OF 2012 Date: 24.01.2014 Between:
P. Gunashekharan S/o. Kolakaiah … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28515 of 2012 ORDER:
Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
2. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the order in Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010, dated 24.06.2011, passed by the 2nd respondent - Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, demoting him from the cadre of Lab Technician Gr.II to Laboratory Assistant as a punishment, confirmed by the 3rd respondent - Board of Trustees vide proceedings in Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010, dated 02.07.2011. The charge against the petitioner is that he secured the promotion as Lab Technician Gr.II on the basis of a fake Lab Technician course certificate, obtained from a private institution, namely, Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Attendant on 05.08.1992 on the basis of a certificate of Laboratory Attendant Course, issued by the S.V. Medical College, Tirupati. He was given promotion to the post of Lab Technician Gr.II on 10.05.1999, on the basis of Medical Laboratory Technician course certificate obtained by him from Rami Educational Academy, Hyderabad.
4. Verification was caused into the genuineness of the aforesaid certificate through the Chief Medical Officer, TTD on the complaint of one T. Narayana Swamy. The said Narayana Swamy made similar complaints against two other employees, namely, Smt. T.Chittemma and G. Lokanatham. The enquiry revealed that the institution itself had no recognition and the institution was functioning under fake recognition orders. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to submit explanation to the charge sheet dated 23.01.2011. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he studied in the aforesaid institution and passed the examination of Medical Laboratory Technician course held from June, 1989 to March, 1990. He was under the impression that the aforesaid institution is a recognized institution and he had no knowledge whether G.O.Ms.No.1073 dated 13.10.1983, recognizing the institution, is a fake one. Therefore, he cannot be found guilty.
5. The explanation was not convincing to the 2nd respondent.
He accordingly, passed the impugned order demoting the petitioner. The appellate Authority confirmed the said order.
6. Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, would strenuously contend that the petitioner secured the certificate after duly undergoing the course; that he was not aware nor was he in a position to know whether the institution was recognized or not. The institution was functioning as a recognized institution under the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1073 dated 13.10.1983; and if the said order is fake, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner. And at any rate, the petitioner had no intention to play fraud on the respondents and his bonafides cannot be disputed. Learned counsel would further submit that in identical circumstances the 3rd respondent – Board of Trustees considered the case of one G. Lokanatham and set aside his termination by awarding a minor punishment of denial of back wages, and the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the same relief.
7. Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that no leniency can be shown to the petitioner since he had obtained the promotion on a certificate issued by an unrecognized institution. He would further contend that it is not relevant whether the petitioner had knowledge that the institution had no recognition since no one can be given appointment on the basis of certificates issued by unrecognized institutions. Learned counsel would further submit that the case of G. Lokanatham is not similar to that of the petitioner.
8. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and the material on record.
9. The specific charge against the petitioner is that the certificate produced by him itself is a fake certificate. However, both the respondents 2 and 3 did not ultimately record a finding that the certificate is a fake one. The conclusion reached by them is that the institution was an unrecognized institution functioning under a fake recognition order.
10. It is to be noted that whether the certificate itself is fake or whether the institution is unrecognized would make no difference so far as it relates to the qualifications of a person. When the institution is not recognized, the certificates issued by it do not carry any value. It is immaterial whether it is within the knowledge of students. On this ground, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with.
11. The only question that is relevant at this stage is that whether the respondents are justified in denying the petitioner the same treatment, which has been given to one G. Lokanatham. G. Lokanatham also obtained Lab Technician course certificate from the very same institution and was subjected to the same charge. The 2nd respondent recorded the same finding against him as is done in the case of the petitioner. However, on appeal filed by him, the 3rd respondent – Board of Trustees passed the following order:
“Sri G. Lokanatham, Lab Technician Grade-II was punished with “TERMINATION FROM SERVICE” in Proceedings Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010 dt.24.06.2011 on the charge of seeking appointment in TTD by producing bogus Lab technician Certificate issued by the “Rami Educational Academy”, Hyderabad (which was clarified by the principal Secretary to Government, Health Medical & Family Welfare (VCIII.2) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in MemoNo.6176/VCIII(2)/2003, dt.09.01.2009).
Aggrieved by the said orders, he filed an appeal on 11.07.2011 before the TTD Board under section 120(i) of Act 30 of 1987 within the stipulated time with a prayer to set-aside the termination orders issued in Proc.Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010, dt.24.06.2011 and to allow his appeal with all consequential benefits besides treating the interregnum period from the date of termination to the date of his joining in service, as one on duty.
The Sub-Committee on appeals after hearing the appellant in its Resolution No.94, dated 04.11.2011 recommended as follows:-
“Heard the appellant. Perused the records. As the appellant was appointed based on the Lab Attendant certificate issued by the S.V. Medical College, Tirupati, he may reinstated to duty by allowing the appeal. The interregnum period from the date of termination till reinstatement may be treated as on duty without backwages.””
12. On the basis of the aforesaid order, G.Lokanatham was also given the posting order on 17.11.2011. It is to be noted that the petitioner is also a similarly situated person who was appointed as Lab Attendant on the basis of the certificate issued by the S.V. Medical College, Tirupati and was later promoted as Lab Technician on the basis of the certificate issued by Rami Educational Academy. The only difference between the two is that while it is a case of promotion in the case of the petitioner, the case of G.Lokanatham is a direct appointment to the said post. Hence, there appears no valid reason as to why the same treatment cannot be extended to the petitioner, as otherwise the action taken by the respondents 2 and 3 would be discriminatory in nature.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order in proceedings Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010, dated 24.06.2011, passed by the 2nd respondent, confirmed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Roc.No.DA4/11180/2010, dated 02.07.2011 are set aside. Consequently, the period from the date of demotion of the petitioner i.e. 24.06.2011 till today shall be treated as on duty, but without backwages. Since the petitioner has been working as Lab Attendant since September 2013, the salary, which has already paid to him shall not be recovered.
14. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition W.P.M.P.No.36373 of 2012 and W.V.M.P. No.2171 of 2013 are dismissed as unnecessary. No order as to costs.
NOUSHAD ALI, J January 24, 2014.
KTL