M BHARANI Vs. POTTI SREERAMULU TELUGU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant joined the service of the first respondent -University as Superintendent on 16.11.1990 through the process of direct recruitment/selection. Thereafter, she was promoted a Assistant Registrar (Legal) on 09.08.1996. Eight years thereafter, she was issued a charge memo dated 14.07.2004, wherein it was alleged that she submitted a fabricated experience certificate at the time of recruitment and that her statement that she was employed between 1984 and 1989 cannot be treated as true since during that period, she is said to have studied Law. The appellant submitted explanation denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent ordered domestic enquiry. In his report dated 24.03.2005, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved. Taking the same into account, the appointing authority passed an order dated 05.05.2005 removing the appellant from service. Challenging the order of punishment, the appellant filed W.P. No. 11286 of 2005. She pleaded that the departmental enquiry was not properly conducted and that the experience certificate filed by her was genuine and that the punishment imposed on her is disproportionate. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 26.02.2008. It was observed that the charge is proved, but the punishment imposed upon the appellant is on the higher side. Accordingly, the order of removal was set aside and the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed the Writ Appeal.

(2.) HEARD Sri S. Ram Chander Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) THE charges framed against the appellant are extracted in the order passed in the writ petition. The gist thereof is that at the time of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (Legal), the verification of possession of Bachelor Degree in Law became necessary and on verification, it emerged that the petitioner though is said to have studied Law between 1984 and 1989, an experience certificate was produced covering that very period at the time of initial appointment. During the course of enquiry, the Proprietor of M/s. Planographers, Offset Printers, Hyderabad, denied the issuance of certificate. Thereby, the charge stood proved. The learned Single Judge also did not disturb the finding. The relief was granted mostly on the grounds of disproportionality of punishment.