VIYYAPU BHASKARA RAO Vs. THE CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the petitioner, an employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, is sought to be terminated after a long tenure of service. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Messenger on 10.4.1970. He was promoted from the post of Messenger to the post of Junior Driver on 15.12.1971 and during the year 1983 he was further promoted to the post of Driver-Grade I. There are no allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1982 on the ground that at the time of his appointment he had produced a false school certificate. In response thereto the petitioner had produced another school certificate, but that was not considered. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 11907 of 1983 and this Court by order dated 24.12.1987 directed the concerned authority to enquire into the matter keeping in view the second certificate produced the petitioner. In the further enquiry, it was found that the second certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine. But, that landed the petitioner in another difficulty, as the second certificate, which was found to be genuine, shows that the petitioner was aged 31 years on the date of his appointment. According to the regulations, which were in force on the date of his appointment, the maximum age limit for entry into service was 25 years. On that ground the petitioner's services were terminated under the impugned order dated 31.10.1988. Challenging that order, the present writ petition has been filed and stay of operation of the impugned order was obtained. By virtue of the stay order the petitioner had been continuing in service. As of now the petitioner is aged little over 54 years and he has got a further service of 3 years and 101/2 months.

(2.) The contention of Mr. V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the circumstances, that the petitioner had been in service for 18 years as on the date of the impugned order and 22 years as on this date, do not warrant termination, as after this length of service the respondent has got no right to terminate the service of the petitioner.

(3.) It is not a case where the petitioner had filed the second certificate and the respondents had not probed into the age of the petitioner at the time of his recruitment, or that knowingly the concerned authority had appointed the petitioner so as to plead the doctrine of estoppel. Here is a case where the petitioner had filed the first certificate to get into service, showing his age as 21 years, as otherwise he would have been age barred on the basis of second certificate. The petitioner is neither entitled for any equity nor can he raise the plea of estoppel as of right because of the lapse on the part of the respondents in the context of the second certificate. In fact, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Port Trust vehemently contended that the petitioner had played fraud on the appointing authority by producing a false certificate suppressing his real age, that the fraud vitiates everything and his initial appointment is void ab initio and as such the petitioner is not at all entitled for any indulgence from this Court, more so in an equitable forum under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the following three decisions in support of his 'contention' - R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. Tithimminh, 1972 SLR 94 , Eranallor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court & others, 1986(2) LLJ 492 and P.V. Chander Rao Vs. Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., 1992 Lab.I.C. 1454 : 1992(1) SLR 777 (A.P.).