N SUBBIAH Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the communication of the first respondent under Ref. Staff/drc/84 dated March 8, 1984 and August 20, 1980, and to direct the first respondent to restore all benefits accrued to the petitioner in his service.

(2.) THE petitioner applied to the first respondent Bank for appointment as sub- staff in the year 1971. The petitioner furnished the school record sheet dated June 9, 1967 issued by the then Head Master Iyyavu Gounder, Panchayat union Higher Secondary School, Kunthanipalayam, Karur Taluk, according to which the petitioner has studied upto VIII Standard and his date of birth was specified as October 27, 1949. The first respondent Bank later appointed the petitioner as Peon with effect from February 3, 1972. In the year 1976, the petitioner forwarded his application to appear privately for Secondary School Leaving Examination, to the Director of Government Examinations enclosing his school record sheet. The Director of Government Examinations called for a report from the panchayat Union Elementary School in respect of the school record sheet dated June 9, 1967 with Admission No. 109. In the meantime, the said Panchayat Union Higher Secondary School became Panchayat Union Elementary School during the year 1973. The then Head Master had also retired. Thereafter one Krishnan was appointed as Head Master of the said Elementary school. The said Krishnan submitted his report stating that the school record sheet in respect of which report was called for could not be co-related. Thereafter, the Director of Government examinations directed the District Educational officer, Karur to lodge a complaint to the police alleging that a false document has been furnished to the authorities. The District Educational Officer lodged a complaint enclosing the school record sheet. On the basis of the complaint, the police authorities registered a case and after investigation laid a charge sheet under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was taken up on file as C. C. No 916/78 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, cheyyar, dismissed the case holding that the police did not examine the then Head Master, iyyavu Gounder, the signatory to the school record sheet, that there was no evidence to prove that the school record sheet was false and that the charge under Section 468 of the Indian Penal code had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently discharged the petitioner under Section 248 (1) of the Criminal procedure Code. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and subsequent to the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, by order dated September 13, 1978 revoked the suspension. Thereafter, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed a charge sheet dated August 20, 1980 stating that the petitioner was charged for having obtained an appointment in the bank by producing false certificate as to his age and qualification and as such the act of the petitioner would amount to 'suggestio false' act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross misconduct as per Clause 19 (5) (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated October 13, 1966. But the bank has not called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the memorandum of charges but deputed one Thiru P. Balagurusamy, Officer, personnel Department, to conduct an enquiry into the above charge and that he would intimate the time, date and venue of enquiry and that the petitioner was called upon to be present for the enquiry. In the meantime, the petitioner made representations dated February 4, 1984 and march 2, 1984 requesting the first respondent to pay full wages during the period of suspension which was later revoked. In reply to the said representations, the first respondent by its letter dated March 8, 1984 informed the petitioner that the charge against the petitioner for which he was proceeded departmentally was that he produced false record sheet to the effect that his educational qualification was VIII Standard and his date of birth was October 27, 1949 and secured employment on the strength of the false record sheet and that there was no connection between the court case and the departmental enquiry proposed to be held and that it was not possible to drop the departmental proceedings. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) MR. N. S. Sivam, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was prosecuted for producing a false document, that the said order of acquittal by the Sub Divisional magistrate became final, that the record sheet produced by the petitioner was accepted by the educational authorities and while so, it cannot be said that it is a forged document. Having held by a competent court that the document is not a forged document, it is not open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings on identical charge. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in Corporation of Nagpur v. Ramachandra g. Modak (AIR) 1984 SC. 626. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the charge did not fall within the scope of Clause 19 (5) (j) of the Bipartite Settlement and consequently the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings and as such the impugned notices are vitiated. Learned counsel also contended that the respondents cannot inquire into very same charge which is the subject matter of the proceedings before the competent criminal court which had given a verdict in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended that so long as the educational authorities have accepted the school certificate, the said certificate remains in law as a statutory document.