A.Rajam v. Director of Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Scheme

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.10.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.35154 OF 2006(O.A.No.7874 of 1998)A.Rajam .. Petitioner Vs.Director of Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Scheme,Chepauk,Chennai-5. .. RespondentThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarito call for the records on the file of the respondent in connectionwith the order passed by him in his proc.Na.Ka.No.67083/E2/97 dated19.2.98 and also in Na.Ka.No.67083/E2/97 dated 16.7.98 and to quashthe same.For Petitioner : No appearanceFor Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakantan, GAORDERThe petitioner filed O.A.No.7874 of 1998, seeking tochallenge the orders, dated 19.2.1998 and 16.7.1998 passed by thefirst respondent, the Director of Social Welfare and NutritiousMeal Scheme.2.By an order, dated 19.2.1998, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Ruleswas framed against the petitioner, charging that in order to gether name included in the list of selectees for the year 1996 forthe post of Women Rural Welfare Officer, the petitioner had given abogus SSLC certificate and got her promotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.She was also charged that from the post of Child WelfareOrganizer to the post of Rural Welfare Officer, the Minimum GeneralEducational Qualification (MGEQ) was prescribed as SSLC. Thedetails were called for from the eligible persons who are entitledto be promoted. The petitioner gave a false SSLC certificate andgot her promotion. 4.The certificate produced by the petitioner was sent forverification by the Director of Government Examinations. It wasfound that it was a fake certificate. Subsequently, the petitionercontended that she had written SSLC examinations as a privatecandidate during March, 1986, October, 1993, April, 1994 andOctober, 1994 and 1995 and she had passed the SSLC. Though thecertificate may have some mistakes, she had no intention to cheatthe Government. There was an unusual delay in getting verificationdone. 5.Subsequently, on the basis of the enquiry, the petitionerwas asked to submit her further explanation. In the enquiry report,it was found that the petitioner has given a bogus certificate forhaving passed SSLC only with a view to secure earlier the higherpost. The registration number given for the year October, 1995 forhaving written the examination related to an another candidate andnot to the petitioner. Even without giving any explanation, thepetitioner has moved the Tribunal, challenging the charge memo andthe show cause notice. The Tribunal held that no oral enquiry wasconducted by examining the witnesses and it was only a personalhearing. Therefore, an interim stay was granted.6.In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matterstood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.35154of 2006.7.On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed areply affidavit, dated 8.2.2000. In the reply affidavit, inparagraphs 8 and 9 it was averred as follows:"8.Regarding Para 6(g) it is submittedthat there is no witness in this case, since thedisciplinary case was based on documentaryevidence viz., the report of Department ofGovernment Examinations. The applicant was givenwith an opportunity to go through the letter ofthe Department of Government Examinations andafter due adherence of rules, the proceedingsimpugned has been passed by the respondent.9.Regarding Para 6(h) it is submittedthat the Department of Government Examinations isthe authority who conducts SSLC Examinations andthey are the authority to verify the SSLC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Certificates with their records. Hence, thereport of the Department of GovernmentExaminations has to be relied upon in thedisciplinary case, initiated against theapplicant."8.The only question arises for consideration is whether ina case of this nature, any elaborate enquiry is contemplated asfound by the Tribunal while granting an interim order?9.In the present case, it must be stated that when a personlacks educational qualification, the appointment can be nullity andno irregularity is found. In such circumstances, any appointment orpromotion contrary to the statutory rule will be void in law asheld by the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. SecondaryEducation Services Commission reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153 andState of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65. 10.Further it must be stated that in a case of suppressionof fact and securing an order, if the facts are admitted, there isno need for any further notice. Any amount of explanation would nothave improved the case of the petitioner as held by the SupremeCourt in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutionsv. Pindiga Sridhar reported in (2007) 13 SCC 352. The followingpassage found in paragraph 7 of the said judgment may be usefullyextracted below:7. The High Court on the basis of theerroneous view upset the well-merited judgmentof the learned Single Judge. By now, it iswell-settled principle of law that theprinciples of natural justice cannot beapplied in a straitjacket formula. Theirapplication depends upon the facts andcircumstances of each case. To sustain thecomplaint of the violation of principles ofnatural justice one must establish that he wasprejudiced for non-observance of theprinciples of natural justice. In the presentcase, the fact on which the appellantterminated the services of the respondent appointed on compassionate ground was admittedby the respondent himself that when he appliedfor the post on compassionate ground by hisapplication dated 6-5-1996, his mother was inservice. So also when he secured theappointment by an order dated 22-11-2002 hiswife was in service since 3-8-1997 asExtension Officer in Rural Development andlater on promoted as Mandal ParishadDevelopment Officer at the time when he wasappointed on compassionate ground. These facts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clearly disclose that the appointment oncompassionate ground was secured by playingfraud. Fraud cloaks everything. In suchadmitted facts, there was no necessity ofissuing show-cause notice to him. The view ofthe High Court that termination suffers fromthe non-observance of the principles ofnatural justice is, therefore, clearlyerroneous. In our view, in the given facts ofthis case, no prejudice whatsoever has beencaused to the respondent. The respondent couldnot have improved his case even if a show-cause notice was issued to him."11.It was pointed out by the Supreme Court that in a caseof fake appointments, cancellation can be made without notice andno mandamus can be issued in such circumstances vide its judgmentin State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65.12.In the light of the above, this court is not inclined toentertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will standdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Sd/ Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkToThe Director of Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Scheme,Chepauk,Chennai-5. ORDER INW.P.NO.35154 OF 2006BKY (CO)RH (6.11.09)