Surinder Pal vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who was serving as Head Master under the Punjab State Education Department, has filed the instant writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, School Education Department, whereby he has been removed from service on the ground that his M.Com Degree obtained from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya (Bihar) is fake. Facts in brief may be noticed.

It has been pleaded that the petitioner did his Graduation in Commerce from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the year 1987. In the year 1991 the petitioner did his M.Com. from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya (Bihar) as a private candidate. Petitioner completed his B.Ed. in the year 2005 from Punjabi University, Patiala. In December, 1994 the Departmental Selection Committee (Teaching), State Education Department invited applications for various posts of teachers including Teacher of Book Keeping and Accountancy in the Commerce stream. Petitioner applied for the same on the basis of his M.Com. qualification and was duly selected and appointed as Vocational Teacher on 14.2.1997. On 21.10.2006 respondent department issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment as Head Masters in various High Schools situated across the State. Essential qualification prescribed was B.T. or B.Ed or Senior Basic Training along with requisite experience. Petitioner being eligible, applied for appointment on the post of Head Master and was duly selected. Accordingly, he resigned from the post of Vocational Teacher on 11.12.2006 and joined as Head Master on 18.12.2006. It is further pleaded that petitioner even successfully completed his probation period.

On 22.12.2010 petitioner was issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-5) to the effect that the department had got his M.Com. Certificate verified and which had found to be fake. His explanation, as such, was called for in writing, within a period of 21 days. Petitioner submitted a reply and after having been given an opportunity of personal hearing on 21.4.2011 the impugned order dated 1.6.2011 was passed removing him from service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master was not on the basis of qualification of M.Com and rather was on the basis of the Graduation Degree of B.Ed along with teaching experience. As such, counsel would argue that holding of M.Com qualification to be fake would have no bearing in so far as appointment to the post of Head Master was concerned. Another limb of the argument raised was that it would not be open for the respondent-authorities to deny to the petitioner the benefit of experience that the petitioner had gained on the post of Vocational Teacher, even if, he lacked the prescribed qualification for such post as experience by itself over a considerable length of time was sufficient to overcome such handicap. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in case of Sarabjit Kaur Dhaliwal v. Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and others, 2012(6) R.C.R. (Civil) 2132 : 2003 (4) R.S.J. 549. Counsel would even raise a ground as regards violation of the principles of natural justice by stating that a regular departmental inquiry had not been conducted in the matter and the petitioner, who was a regular employee could not have been removed from service as such.

Per contra, learned State counsel would refer to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 to state that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Master cannot be isolated from his earlier service rendered as Vocational Teacher. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master by taking into consideration his experience of 8 years rendered as Vocational Teacher, which in turn was based upon a fake qualification. That apart, it has been contended on behalf of the State that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of being heard prior to passing of the impugned order of removal. In this regard a reference is made to the show cause notice dated 22.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) that was duly served upon the petitioner as also an opportunity of personal hearing that had been granted to the petitioner by the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Education on 21.4.2011. It has been contended that since the petitioner failed to establish that his M.Com Degree was genuine, accordingly, a decision had been taken to remove him from service.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

Placed on record at Annexure P-2 is the advertisement issued by the respondent-department, whereby online applications had been invited for the post of Head Master. The essential and prescribed qualifications were B.T. or B.Ed. or Senior Basic Training coupled with experience i.e. 6 years in the case of M.Ed. with M.A. or M.Sc/7 years in the case of B.T./B.Ed. with M.A. or M.Sc/8 years in the case of B.T./B. Ed. With B.A. or B.Com or B.Sc and so on so forth. The petitioner, who possesses the qualification of B.A., B.Ed., secured appointment to the post of Head Master undoubtedly on the basis of such qualification but in addition thereto on the basis of 8 years experience acquired having served as Vocational Teacher. Concededly, the essential qualification for the post of Vocational Teacher was that of M.Com. Such qualification of M.Com possessed by the petitioner having been found to be fake, the benefit of experience on the post of Vocational Teacher could not have enured in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondent-department in having removed the petitioner from service while holding the post of Head Master.

A somewhat similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in case of District Primary School Council, WB Vs. Mritunjoy Das and Others, . Herein the contesting respondents had got themselves admitted for a training course for obtaining the Primary Teachers'' Training Institute Certificate which was a prerequisite to get appointment as Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools in West Bengal. After having obtained the certificates upon completing the training course they submitted applications for appointment as Assistant Teachers in which they were selected and duly appointed. Subsequently, it was found that they had taken admission in the training course for Primary Teachers'' Training Institute Certificate by inflating their marks. On such basis, the respondents were dismissed from service. The question that was posed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was whether the order of dismissal was justified in view of the fact that at the time of appointment as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, there was no fraud played by them and they had got the appointments after qualifying in the test held for appointment as Assistant Teachers. It was argued on their behalf that they had completed the training course successfully and therefore, any violation prior to appointment as Assistant Teachers should not have been given such weightage so as to disentitle them from continuing in their job. While upholding the action of dismissal from service, it was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that, if, a particular act is fraudulent, any consequential action to such fraudulent act or conduct is non-est and void ab initio.

The ratio of the judgment in case of Mritunjoy Das and others (supra) would apply even to the facts of the present case. The petitioner secured appointment to the post of Vocational Teacher on the basis of a fake degree. Even though, the essential qualification for the post of Head Master was not Post Graduation but merely Graduation i.e. B.Ed., which undoubtedly the petitioner possesses, yet, the additional essential eligibility condition was with regard to possessing the requisite 8 years experience and the benefit of experience was claimed by the petitioner on the post of Vocational Teacher. Such benefit could not have been granted to the petitioner as his appointment to the post of Vocational Teacher was based on a fake degree.

The reliance placed by learned counsel upon the Division Bench judgment in Sarabjit Kaur Dhaliwal''s case (supra) is totally misplaced. Therein there was no misrepresentation on the part of the candidate seeking appointment to a post and yet such candidate had been appointed despite not having the requisite qualifications. It was in the light of such facts that it was held that the services of such a candidate could not have been dispensed with for want of requisite qualifications. The facts of the present case, as such, are clearly distinguishable. Herein the petitioner sought to take advantage of a fake degree and to such extent there was a clear fraud and misrepresentation.

With regard to observance of principles of natural justice are concerned, the petitioner had been duly served with a show cause notice to which he had responded. It is only after consideration of his reply and having been offered an opportunity of personal hearing that the impugned order removing him from service had been passed. Even though, in the pleadings on record the petitioner is contesting the matter with regard to his M.Com. Degree being fake, yet, during the course of final arguments, Mr. Shailender Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had been very fair and forth right in admitting that the M.Com. Degree possessed by the petitioner, obtained from Magadh University, Bodh Gaya (Bihar) was, indeed, fake. Under such circumstances would the principles of natural justice be stretched to such a limit so as to hold that a regular inquiry was necessary and imperative? The answer to such poser has to be in the negative. In taking such view, I would draw support from the following observations made by Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (II), :-

....The theory reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice.

At this stage, learned counsel would raise a submission that the ends of justice would be met, if, this Court would consider intervention as regards the quantum of punishment and thereby substitute the order of removal from service to a lesser penalty. Even such submission is without merit. The petitioner had secured appointment as Vocational Teacher on the basis of a fake degree. Such conduct deserves deprecation in the strongest terms. There would be no scope of any leniency in such matters.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.