T.D.SREEJAKUMARI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kerala is a state known for its high rate of literacy. But in some cases higher qualification itself is a disqualification for getting appointment in certain posts. Petitioner who was appointed as Part time sweeper in the respondent bank is dismissed from service after 5 years with a charge that she suppressed her pass in SSLC, whereas the qualification for the post is 7th standard. I am sure that, now in Kerala almost all youngsters in the new generation will be with a qualification of 10th standard at least. That may be the reason why the respondents now changed the qualification for the post occupied by the petitioner to 12th standard in Ext.P10 notification. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as part time Sweeper in the service of the respondent bank as per Ext.P1 appointment order dtd. 22/9/2008. On completion of the period of probation, she was appointed as Full Time House Keeper cum Peon in the service of the bank. While holding the post of Full Time House Keeper cum Peon at its Thankamony Branch of the bank, the petitioner was issued with a memo of charges on 16/8/2013 alleging that while taking employment in the service of the bank, the petitioner has produced fraudulent certificate showing that her qualification is 7th Standard and on verification it has been found that she has passed the 10th Standard examination and that making such a false statement is a misconduct. Ext.P2 is the show cause notice. Petitioner immediately submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges. In the explanation it was brought to the notice that the petitioner has produced the true and genuine certificate of passing the examination and that the allegation contained in the memo is not correct and further that the possession of higher qualification is not a disqualification at all and that the petitioner has disclosed only the necessary certificate to prove her eligibility for employment. Ext.P3 is the explanation. According to the petitioner, without considering the objection preferred by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed simultaneously. It is further submitted that the appointment of the enquiry officer in the absence of consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner by the disciplinary authority itself vitiates the entire matter and it is also an aspect brought to the notice of the authorities. But the enquiry officer so appointed proceeded with the enquiry is the further submission. It is submitted that, before the enquiry officer, except the production of certain documents by the presenting officer, no materials whatsoever has been produced to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. But the enquiry officer without adverting to any of the legal facts and aspects found that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct alleged is the submission. Ext.P4 is the copy of the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority on receipt of the enquiry report, even without giving an opportunity to make any representation to the finding of the enquiry report, accepted the views of the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner has committed the misconduct alleged and proposed to impose a punishment of dismissal from service and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation as to why the punishment shall not be imposed. Ext.P5 is the show cause notice. It is submitted that the proposal to impose the punishment accepting the enquiry report without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner submitted an explanation to the show cause notice as evident by Ex.P6. But without considering any of the aspects noted by the petitioner, she was imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service as evident by Ext.P7 is the submission. Aggrieved by the above action, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. But the appellate authority also took the same decision and dismissed the appeal as evident by Ext.P8. It is submitted that, the appellate authority has not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the gravity of penalty imposed. It is submitted by the petitioner that, while the petitioner was working as a casual sweeper, the bank invited applications for the post and the petitioner was also one among the applicants responded to that notification. It is further submitted that the casual labourers working in the service of the bank were given preference for appointment along with direct recruits. The further contention of the petitioner is that the bank itself had issued circulars regularizing the contingent employees in the service of the bank after giving chance to furnish the details of the higher qualification they possessed. Ext.P9 is the circular relied on by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the bank arrived at a settlement on 25/11/2013, by which the employees were given relaxation in qualification and age and that in the notification issued thereafter the qualification to the post was amended as pass in 10th standard (but should not have passed 12th standard). Further the new notification issued by the bank also positively evidences that the bank itself had revised the qualification and in terms of the same the candidate with the qualification of pass in 5th standard and has not completed 12th standard can apply for the post. The petitioner produced Ext.P10 notification to prove the same. In such situation, this Writ petition is filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.