M. Sathee Devi vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Aggrieved by an order of dismissal passed by the second respondent/Board by proceedings dated 15.3.1995, which

was on appeal confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority by G.O.(ID) 297, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated

26.6.1997, which is impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in proceedings

G.O.(ID) 297, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.6.1997 passed by the first respondent, quash the same, and to reinstate

the petitioner in service.

Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The petitioner was working as a Steno-typist in the Directorate of Rural Development from 17.8.1967 to

8.4.1969 and thereafter, she joined the Tamil Nadu Government Secretariat and served for a period of eleven years from 9.4.1969 to 8.7.1980,

i.e, till she was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and made permanent in the second respondent/ Board. Her service in the second

respondent/Board since 9.7.1980 was regularised, presumably based on the qualification required for Steno-typists in Government service, which

is the same for Steno-typists working in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

The qualification required for the post of Steno-typist in the Government service as well as the second respondent/Board is one and the same,

as per the amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.641, Housing & Urban Development Department, dated 18.4.1984, Gazette dated 19.12.1984, which

reads as follows :-

Steno-Typist

i) Must possess the minimum General Educational Qualification prescribed by the Government.

i) By direct recruitment or

ii) By promotion or transfer of persons in other categories including the category of Telephone Operator, Record Clerk, and Basic Servants

possessing the requisite qualifications.

ii) Must have passed the Government Technical Examinations in Typewriting and Shorthand.

a) by the Higher Grade in Tamil and English; or

b) by the Higher Grade in Tamil and Lower Grade in English; or

c) by the Higher Grade in English and Lower Grade in Tamil.

Provided the candidates with the qualifications referred to in item (b) above shall be recruited only if candidates with the qualification referred to in

item (a) above are not available; provided further that candidates with the qualifications referred to in item (c) above shall be recruited only if

candidates with the qualifications referred to in item (a) and (b) above are not available.

On the strength of the above qualification and the continued service in the Government and thereafter in the second respondent/Board, the

petitioner by a representation dated 28.2.1992 requested the second respondent/Board to award the benefit of Selection Grade and to revise her

scale of pay accordingly.

While considering her representation, the qualification of the petitioner was scrutinized by the second respondent/Board and it was found that

the certificate of the petitioner bearing Serial Number WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued by the Director of Technical

Education (Department of Technical Education) was tampered with, as though she had passed Lower Grade Technical Examination in Shorthand

Tamil conducted by the Director of Technical Education. Therefore, by memorandum dated 3.2.1993, a disciplinary action was initiated against

the petitioner alleging that she had produced forged certificate bearing Serial Number WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued

by the Director of Technical Education, Madras-600 025, and consequently, by the said proceedings, she was kept under suspension.

In the meanwhile, an opinion was obtained from the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams) as to the genuineness of the certificate

bearing Serial Number WC027742, issued by the Director of Technical Education, to the effect that the said certificate was issued to the petitioner

herein, with reference to registration No.56947, for having passed Tamil Typewriting Lower Grade in November, 1979, with 27 words per minute

speed, as per the records maintained at the Department of Technical Education. A copy of the said clarification of the Additional Director of

Technical Education (Exams) dated 20.11.1992, was admittedly served on the petitioner during the enquiry and ultimately, the Enquiry Officer by

his proceedings dated 19.5.1994 found that the charges against the petitioner were proved and a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was

also served on the petitioner by memo dated 20.5.1994 calling for her objections to the same. A further representation was also sought for from

the petitioner against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service, to which the petitioner submitted her representation on 27.5.1994. The

second respondent/Board, after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the representation of the petitioner dated 27.5.1994 against the

findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as to the proposed punishment of dismissal, resolved to dismiss the petitioner from the service of the second

respondent/Board by their resolution dated 24.6.1994 and the same was sent for the approval of the Government on 4.7.1994. The Government,

by proceedings dated 9.3.1995, approved the decision of the second respondent/Board dated 24.6.1994 to dismiss the petitioner from the service

of the second respondent/Board. Accordingly, the second respondent/Board, by proceedings dated 15.3.1995, dismissed the petitioner from

service, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 27.3.1995 to the Government. The Government dismissed the appeal by G.O.(ID)

297, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.6.1997, confirming the order of dismissal. Hence, the above writ petition.

7.1. Mr. P.P. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, of course, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was given opportunity during the

enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer.

7.2. The main grievance of Mr. P.P. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reliance on the clarification of the Additional Director

of Technical Education (Exams) dated 20.11.1992 is illegal, as the same is not marked through any officer from the Department of Technical

Education and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of questioning the clarification issued by the Additional Director of

Technical Education (Exams) by proceedings dated 20.11.1992.

7.3. On merits, Mr. P.P. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner never tampered the impugned certificate bearing

Serial Number WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued by the Director of Technical Education (Department of Technical

Education), and it was someone, inimical to the petitioner in the office of the second respondent/Board, who had made such tampering when the

certificates were in the custody of the second respondent/Board.

8.1. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, and Mr. D. Veerasekaran,

learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Board, inviting my attention to the original records relating to the impugned proceedings,

contended that the petitioner had no grievance as to the procedure followed during the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, nor made any

representation before the Enquiry Officer, either questioning or objecting to the clarification offered by the Additional Director of Technical

Education (Exams) dated 20.11.1992.

8.2. Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Board further contends that, when the rules contemplate a

qualification of pass in Shorthand Lower Grade in Tamil, it is for the petitioner to satisfy that she possesses such qualification, particularly, when

she had made a representation to the second respondent/Board seeking Selection Grade benefits, on the ground that she had passed Shorthand

Lower Grade in Tamil, and therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioner that she was not a party to the tampering of the records relating to

Serial Number WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued by the Director of Technical Education (Department of Technical

Education), is not tenable.

8.3. In any event, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that strict compliance of rules of evidence is not applicable to the

disciplinary proceedings.

I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

The fact that the petitioner by representation dated 28.2.1992 addressed to the second respondent/Board sought the benefit of the Selection

Grade on the strength of her qualification as Steno-Typist, and the service put in by her in the Government service and thereafter in the second

respondent/Board, is not disputed. In the said representation, the petitioner had stated as follows:

... I have passed Account Test, D.O.M., Tamil Typewriting and Tamil Shorthand. I have also appeared for Special Language Test.

Since the petitioner had stated that she had passed Tamil Shorthand, nothing prevented her to produce the certificate for the said qualification. But,

even as on date, the petitioner could not produce the certificate for passing of Tamil Shorthand Lower Grade. Therefore, the fact remains that she

had not passed Tamil Shorthand Lower Grade.

On the other hand, the impugned certificate bearing Serial Number WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued by the

Director of Technical Education (Department of Technical Education), which stands in the name of the petitioner, is tampered to the effect that she

had passed the Tamil Shorthand Lower Grade at the Government Technical Examinations conducted by the Department of Technical Education in

the month of November, 1979.

In this regard, I am obliged to extract the clarification issued by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams), dated 20.11.1992,

relevant portion of which reads as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

From To

The Additional Director The Chairman and

of Technical Education Managing Director

(Exams), Guindy, Tamil Nadu Housing

Madras-600 025. Board, 331, Anna Salai

Nandanam P.O.,

Madras-600 035.

Letter No.79640/T3/92, dated 20.11.1992

Sir,

Sub: Government Technical Examinations - Nov''1979 Tmt. M. Sathee Devi - Clarification regarding Certificate - Reg.

Ref: Your letter No.ENT-4/57233/92, dated 5.11.1992

***

With reference to your letter cited, I have to inform you that the certificate issued in respect of Tmt. M. Sathee Devi by this office in Registration

No.56947 and Certificate Sl.No.WC0277 42 is for passing of TAMIL TYPEWRITING LOWER GRADE in November, 1979 with 27

WORDS PER MINUTE as per our office records.

The original certificate of the individual as received from you is also returned herewith.

The original certificate seems to have been tampered with.

Kindly arrange to keep us informed of the action taken in this regard. The receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged.

The petitioner never questioned the correctness of the above clarification dated 20.11.1992 of the Additional Director of Technical Education

(Exams), before the Enquiry Officer, even though she was given a fair and reasonable opportunity.

The contention that the clarification dated 20.11.1992 of the Additional Director of Technical Education (Exams) could not be relied upon, for

non-examination of any of the officer of the Department of Technical Education, is not tenable in law, as in case of disciplinary enquiry the technical

rules of evidence and the doctrine of ""proof beyond doubt"" have no application, vide State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others, and LALIT

POPLI Vs. CANARA BANK reported in AIR 2003 SCW 1238.

Hence, finding no procedural lapse in the impugned disciplinary action, it may not be proper for this Court to interfere with and disturb the

finding of the Enquiry Officer when the charges against the petitioner are proved. Once the charges are proved, it is for the employer to take

appropriate decision in the matter as to the quantum of punishment, as it may not be proper for this Court, by exercising judicial review, to enter in

the arena of the decision of the employer as to the quantum of punishment to be imposed against the delinquent, vide Regional Manager,

U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another, .

The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed with a direction to the respondents to return all the original certificates of the petitioner

to her, including the impugned tampered certificate bearing Serial No.WC027742, with reference to registration No.56947, issued by the Director

of Technical Education, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.18194 of

2001 is also dismissed.