In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the dismissal of a teacher accused of securing employment by submitting a fraudulent disability certificate. The court emphasized that “a person who obtained a job through fraud does not deserve sympathy or indulgence.” The case underlines the court’s strict stance against fraud in public employment.
Background of the Case
The case, Writ Petition No. 4581 of 2018, was filed by G. Venkata Naga Maruthi, a teacher who had secured an appointment as a School Assistant (English) under the 2012 District Selection Committee (DSC) recruitment for physically handicapped candidates. Maruthi, who claimed to have hearing impairment, was appointed to a reserved post at Zilla Parishad High School, P.N. Varam, Prakasam District.
The issue arose when another candidate, D. Narayana, alleged that Maruthi had used a fake disability certificate to secure the job. This led to an inquiry by the District Educational Officer (DEO), Prakasam, which revealed discrepancies in the authenticity of the certificate. The DEO initiated disciplinary action, resulting in Maruthi’s removal from service on March 26, 2015.
Legal Issues
The main legal issues in this case were:
1. Validity of Disability Certificate: The central question was whether the disability certificate submitted by Maruthi was genuine.
2. Fraudulent Claim for Reserved Post: The case examined whether Maruthi misrepresented her disability to secure a job under the physically handicapped quota.
3. Appropriate Punishment for Fraudulent Appointment: The court evaluated whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.
Court Proceedings
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay. The petitioner was represented by Sri Ch. Satyanarayana, while Sri Nagaraju Naguru, Government Pleader for Services-I, represented the state and respondents.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
– Maruthi claimed that she never submitted the alleged fake certificate and that her appointment was not under the physically handicapped quota. Her counsel argued that the certificate submitted was related to her studies and not for job application.
– The petitioner further asserted that her acquittal in a related criminal case, where she faced charges of forgery under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), should influence the tribunal’s decision.
Respondents’ Stand:
– The government argued that Maruthi had indeed applied for the post under the physically handicapped category, marking “>70% hearing impairment” in her application form.
– The certificate presented was later proven to be fake, as it bore the signature of a doctor who had retired before its issuance.
Key Observations by the Court
The High Court noted several crucial aspects of the case:
1. Fraudulent Conduct: The court observed that Maruthi had applied under the reserved category for physically handicapped candidates, knowing she did not meet the criteria. The court remarked:
“A person who obtains public employment through fraud not only violates the law but also displaces a genuine candidate entitled to the reserved post.”
2. Distinguishing Criminal and Departmental Proceedings:
– The court emphasized that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental inquiries differ. While criminal proceedings require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, departmental proceedings require only a preponderance of probabilities.
– The court ruled that Maruthi’s acquittal in the criminal case did not affect the validity of the departmental findings, which established that she secured the job through fraudulent means.
3. Role of the Tribunal:
– The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in its earlier order, had set aside the removal and recommended discharging Maruthi from service. The High Court criticized this approach, stating:
“Once fraud is established, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the disciplinary authority’s decision to remove Maruthi from service.”
4. Upholding the Dismissal:
– The court concluded that Maruthi’s fraudulent appointment warranted strict action, stating:
“Granting protection to individuals who are ineligible for posts undermines good governance and violates the rights of deserving candidates.”
– The court cited similar Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that no leniency should be shown to those who secure public employment through fraudulent means.
Final Judgment
The High Court modified the tribunal’s order, maintaining Maruthi’s dismissal from service. Additionally, the court imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 on Maruthi, directing her to pay the amount to Omkar & Lions Educational Society for the Deaf, a special school in Visakhapatnam.
Case Details
– Case Name: G. Venkata Naga Maruthi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
– Case Number: W.P. No. 4581/2018
– Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Sri Ch. Satyanarayana
– Respondents’ Counsel: Sri Nagaraju Naguru, Government Pleader for Services-I
