S.R. Rajini v. Madurai Law College

For Respondents : Mr.Sankaran, 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader for Mr.A.Suresh, Government AdvocateFor 4th respondent : Mr.G.R.SwaminathanFor 5th respondent : Mr.T.D.VasuO R D E RThe challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed bythe first respondent dated 12.4.2000 made in his proceedingsNa.Ka.No.439/E/2001 cancelling the admission of the petitioner to thefive year Bachelor of Law Course for the academic year 1998-99 on theground of submission of a bogus +2 Mark sheet and consequently,seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondents to permitthe petitioner to pursue her studies in the fourth and fifth year ofB.L.Degree Course at the first respondent college and write theconcerned examinations conducted by the fifth respondent.2. The filing of the petition arising out of the followingfactual scenario :The petitioner appeared for the +2 examination held during March1998 and as per the original mark sheet issued to the petitioner, thepetitioner said to have secured 44% marks out of 200 in Mathematicssubject. As the petitioner expected more marks she has applied forretotalling of her marks in Mathematics subject by submitting herapplication dated 12.6.1998 to the third respondent herein. Thepetitioner also paid the necessary fees for retotalling the marks inMathematics. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated9.7.98 from the third respondent through his proceedingsNa.Ka.No.063268/Me.Ni.16/98 by post intimating that the retotallingmarks comes to 81 and instructed the petitioner to receive the marksheet from the fourth respondent, namely, the Headmistress of theHigher Secondary School. The third respondent addressed the saidletter dated 9.7.1998 to the Headmistress, the fourth respondentherein, and marked a copy to the petitioner herein. Thereafter, thepetitioner obtained the retotalling mark sheet from the fourthrespondent.3. The petitioner after obtaining the mark sheet as stated aboveapplied for five year Bachelor of Law Course in Madurai Law Collegefor the academic year 1998-99 and she has written the entranceexamination on 5.10.1998. The petitioner was selected for the fiveyears Bachelor of Law Degree Course in Madurai Law College and afterpayment of tuition fees, she has been admitted for the first yearB.L. Degree Course for the year 1998-99. The petitioner wasregularly attending the classes and she has passed the first twoyears and appeared for the third year examination during March 2001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ But her results have been withheld. The first respondent issued ashow cause notice dated 21.3.2001 in his proceedingsNa.Ka.No.439/2/2001 stating that the petitioner's +2 mark sheet wassent to the third respondent for clarification which revealed thatthe +2 mark sheet furnished by the petitioner was a forged and bogusone and the said mark sheet was not issued by the third respondent.The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 23.3.2001 bysubmitting her explanation to the effect that the mark sheet producedby her is a genuine one and only as per the intimation sent by thethird respondent, she has received the said mark sheet from thefourth respondent by surrendering her old mark sheet. The petitionerdenied the allegations and as the first respondent proceeded to takeaction in spite of such submission of explanation, the petitionerwas constrained to file W.P.No.6174 of 2001 before this Court andthis Court passed an order in the said writ petition dated 14.02.2002directing the first respondent to institute a proper enquiry on theshow cause notice and to pass orders on merits after giving dueopportunity to the petitioner to produce all materials and also aftergiving a personal hearing to the petitioner.4. The further version of the petitioner is that during thependency of the above said writ petition in W.P.No.6174 of 2001, thepetitioner was permitted to write the third year examinations, butthe results were withheld. The petitioner appeared for the enquiryon 23.2.2002 before the first respondent and the petitioner producedthe mark sheet with Serial No.2456102, wherein the mark inMathematics was shown as 44 and also produced the letter dated 9.7.98issued by the third respondent stating that the retotalled mark is81, a Challan copy for payment of a sum Rs.127/- for the retotallingdated 10.6.98 and the Xerox copy of the retotalled mark sheet bearingS.No. AB 2653092. The petitioner also filed a detailed affidavitdenying the charges levelled against her. The first respondentrejected the explanation of the petitioner and passed the impugnedorder dated 12.4.2002 signed on 12.4.2002 cancelling the admission ofthe petitioner to the five year Bachelor of Law Degree Course. Thesaid order is under challenge in this petition.5. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has beencharged for the allegation of producing a bogus mark sheet withoutany materials. It is further contended that the said charge isbaseless and no evidence available on record to implicate thepetitioner to the effect that the petitioner forged the mark sheet.The learned senior counsel would also contend that the petitionerreceived a communication dated 9.7.1998 from the third respondentdirecting the petitioner to receive the retotalled mark sheet fromthe Headmistress of the school and the said communication wasaddressed to the Headmistress of the school and as such it cannot becontended by the third respondent that the mark sheet obtained by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner after retotalling is a bogus one. The learned seniorcounsel would further contend that the first respondent passed theimpugned order holding that the petitioner has not proved that themark sheet produced by her is a genuine one ignoring that it is theburden of the third respondent to prove that the mark sheet producedby the petitioner is not a genuine one. The learned senior counselalso proceeded to point out certain other illegalities andinfirmities in passing the impugned order by the first respondent tothe effect that the first respondent has ignored, overlooked theexplanation submitted by the petitioner through her affidavit andalso brushed aside the documents produced by the petitioner, namely,the letter dated 9.7.1998 sent by the third respondent, a chalan forpayment of a sum of Rs.127/- for retotalling dated 10.6.1998 and thecopy of the application submitted for retotalling dated 12.6.1998.It is contended on the other hand that the third respondent has notproduced any materials to prove that the mark sheet submitted by thepetitioner is a bogus one. The learned senior counsel would alsocontend that the first respondent before passing the impugned orderhas not called for any remarks from the third respondent and it isalso contended that the first respondent passed the impugned orderarbitrarily and without application of mind merely on the basis ofthe letter of the third respondent dated 3.3.2001 stating that themark sheet produced by the petitioner is a bogus one without evenexamining the third respondent and without any evidence.6. Per contra, Mr.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleaderappearing for respondents 1 to 3 contended that there is noillegality in the impugned order passed by the first respondent asthe said order was passed after giving effective opportunity to thepetitioner to put forth her contentions. It is further contendedthat the verification of the records available with the thirdrespondent clearly shows that the third respondent has not at allreceived any application for retotalling from the petitioner hereinand as such the mark sheet produced by the petitioner before thefirst respondent is a bogus one. The learned Special GovernmentPleader by placing three records before this Court namely, theRegister maintained for making entries in respect of the originalmark sheets, the Register maintained for registering the retotallingmark sheets and thirdly, the register maintained for issuing theretotalled mark sheet to the respective candidates contended that thesaid registers disclose that the petitioner neither sent theapplication for re-totalling nor the third respondent issued the re-totalled mark sheet through the communication dated 9.7.1998.7. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submittedthat the petitioner studied in the fourth respondent school and shehad originally secured 44 marks in Mathematics and thereafter sheapplied for re-totalling. It is further submitted that the schoolhas received a communication dated 9.7.1998 through registered post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the office of the third respondent along with the re-totalledmark sheet showing that the petitioner has been awarded 81 marks inMathematics. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent furthersubmitted that subsequently, the petitioner appeared before thefourth respondent and received the re-totalled mark sheet. It is alsosubmitted that the records available in the school discloses that thepetitioner also brought the copy of the communication dated 9.7.1998sent by the third respondent at the time of receiving the re-totalledmark sheet.8. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to therival contentions put forth by either side and also thoroughlyscrutinised the materials available on record including the recordsproduced before this Court by the third respondent herein and alsoperused the impugned order. 9. The crux of the question involved in this matter is thatwhether the mark sheet produced by the petitioner is a genuine one orbogus one and whether the third respondent produced any evidencedirect or indirect to prove such allegation and whether the impugnedorder passed by the first respondent is based on any evidence or evenpreponderance of probabilities ?10. The categorical version of the petitioner is that she haspreferred an application dated 12.6.1998 for re-totalling of hermarks in Mathematics. The preference of such application by thepetitioner is substantiated by the statement of the fourthrespondent, the Headmistress of the School. In the counter affidavitfiled by the fourth respondent school, it is stated categoricallythat the petitioner applied for re-totalling. Yet another documentavailable on record as produced by the petitioner before the firstrespondent is the copy of certificate of credit in respect of paymentof fee for re-totalling the marks issued by the Assistant TreasuryOfficer, Sub-Treasury, Madurai. The petitioner also produced thexerox copy of the application for re-totalling of marks dated12.6.1998 before the first respondent. Therefore, it is crystalclear from the above said documents that the petitioner substantiatedher version that she had submitted an application in the prescribedformat issued by the department for retotalling the marks inMathematics. Apart from substantiating the claim of the petitionerpreferring the application for retotalling, the petitioner alsoproduced other relevant connected records, namely, the letter ofcommunication said to have been addressed to the Headmistress of thefourth respondent school and the postal cover. It is pertinent tonote that the communication dated 9.7.1998 sent by the thirdrespondent reveals that a copy was marked to the petitioner hereinand further directed the petitioner to receive the mark sheet fromthe Headmistress of the school. The petitioner claimed that afterreceiving such mark sheet from the Headmistress, the fourth https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent herein, she came to know that as per the retotalled marksheet she secured 81 marks in Mathematics. It is seen that the saidmark sheet contains the signature of the Secretary, Board of HigherSecondary Examination, Tamil Nadu with the seal.11. The counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent beforethis Court further discloses that the petitioner met the thenHeadmistress Sudanthiradevi Ramar and received the retotalled marksheet and the said Headmistress since retired, the presentHeadmistress, the fourth respondent herein has filed the counteraffidavit on the basis of the records available in the school. It isstated in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent that asigned statement of the said Headmistress, namely, SudanthiradeviRamar, which is also available in the records of the school statingthat she handed over the retotalled mark sheet to the petitionerherein. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent also produced acopy of the register maintained in the school to show that after thereceipt of the retotalling mark, in the column mentioning the name ofthe petitioner mark in respect of Mathematics was corrected as 081and also it is stated as 'pass' by striking the letters written as'fail'. The said corrections also signed by the then Headmistress. 12. It is seen that on the production of the retotalled marksheet along with the application, the petitioner appeared for writtenexamination and ultimately selected for the five year B.L. Course forthe year 1998-99. The petitioner was admitted after perusal andverification of the original mark sheet and other connectedcertificates by the first respondent herein. After completion of twoyears and when the petitioner was about to write the third yearexamination, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated21.3.2001 from the first respondent alleging that as per the lettersent by the third respondent dated 3.3.2001, it was alleged that themark sheet produced by the petitioner is a bogus one and as such thepetitioner was called upon to give explanation as to why actionshould not be taken for cancelling her admission in the five yearB.L. Course.13. This Court cannot lost sight of the admitted fact to theeffect that the show cause notice dated 21.3.2001 does not discloseany reasons or materials on which it was established that the marksheet produced by the petitioner is a bogus one. The firstrespondent made only a reference in respect of the letter sent by thethird respondent herein dated 3.3.2001 in Letter No.128784/V3/2000stating that the mark sheet relating to the petitioner underRegistration No.564979 March 1998 is found to be a bogus one onverification of the other office records and such certificate was notissued by the Department of Government Examinations and thepetitioner on her own increased the mark in the mark sheet. It ispertinent to note that a copy of the said letter sent by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent to the first respondent dated 03.03.2001 also not servedto the petitioner either at the time of serving the show cause noticeor at the time of conducting enquiry. It is the admitted case of therespondents that except serving the show cause notice, no otherdocument was served to the petitioner before or at the time ofenquiry. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that on the otherhand, it is only the petitioner produced the relevant documents, asstated above, to establish her contention that she had applied forre-totalling and she has received the re-totalled mark sheet throughthe fourth respondent, the school Headmistress.14. Now coming to the manner and method under which the enquirywas conducted by the first respondent, it is to be stated, at theoutset, that the first respondent adopted a strange procedure unknownto law. A reading of the impugned order dated 1.4.2002 signed by thefirst respondent on 12.4.2002 reveals that neither the thirdrespondent nor any one of the officials of the respondents 1 to 3appeared and participated in the enquiry proceedings conducted by thefirst respondent herein to prove the allegation levelled against thepetitioner. On the other hand, the impugned order reveals that thepetitioner appeared before the first respondent and participated inthe enquiry by filing her affidavit narrating the sequence of eventsand giving her explanation to the allegation levelled against her.It is seen that the petitioner also produced the documents, namely,the copy of the re-totalled +2 mark sheet bearing registrationNo.564979 March 1998, the copy of the original mark sheet, the copyof the application dated 06.11.2001 and the certificate of creditissued by the Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Madurai, forthe payment of a sum of Rs.127/- towards fees for re-totalling.Apart from filing the affidavit and producing the documents, thepetitioner was also enquired by the first respondent and thepetitioner answered all the queries put by the first respondent andcategorically and assertively stated that the +2 mark sheet producedby her for the admission of five year law course is a genuine one. Aperusal of the affidavit dated 22.3.2001 filed by the petitionerbefore the first respondent during the course of enquiry reveals thatthe petitioner stated all the details and denied the allegation asshe has produced the bogus mark sheet. The petitioner also pointedout in the said affidavit that certain contradictory statements madein the counter filed in her earlier writ petition in W.P.No.6174 of2001 by the respondents to the effect that serial number of thepetitioner was wrongly mentioned as AB 2456096 instead of AB2456102. It is further pointed out in the said affidavit that in thecounter filed by the respondents in W.P.No.6174 of 2001 before thisCourt stated that the Director of Legal Studies has addressed aletter to the Joint Director of Government Examinations in letterNo.1771/B3/2001 dated 31.3.2001 asking clarification as "Whether theletter No.053268/nkep/16/98 dated 9.7.98 purported to be issued by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Joint Director of Government Examination informing the Headmistressof O.C.P.M. Girls Higher Secondary School, Madurai, regarding thecancellation of original Mark Statement of the petitioner herein andthe issue of a revised mark statement bearing Serial No.AB 2653092was a genuine one". The Joint Director of Government Examination inhis letter No.128784/tp 3?3(tp 1)/2000 dated 17.4.2001 has replied theDirector of Legal Studies as that "The letter No.053282 dated 9.7.98is a forged one". Therefore, it is pointed out by the petitionerthat the Joint Director of Government Examination has not replied theclarification sought for by the Director of Legal Studies and in hisreply he has mentioned about some other letter bearing No.053282dated 9.7.98 instead of the disputed letter bearing No.053268 dated9.7.98. All these detailed explanation and statement given by thepetitioner through her affidavit have been simply overlooked andignored by the first respondent herein. The first respondentbrushing aside the documents and affidavit by the petitioner and theversion given by the petitioner during the enquiry, held that thepetitioner has not produced any document to substantiate her versionthat the mark sheet produced by her is not a bogus one.15. The first respondent has committed a serious error of lawby wrongly placing the burden on the petitioner to prove theallegation that the +2 mark sheet produced by her is not a bogus oneforgetting for a moment that it is the initial burden of the thirdrespondent to produce prima facie materials and evidence tosubstantiate the allegation that the mark sheet produced by thepetitioner is a bogus one. As already pointed out, neither the thirdrespondent nor the second respondent or any of the officials of theDirectorate of Government Examinations appeared and participated inthe enquiry by giving their evidence and producing materials tosubstantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Thefirst respondent by merely placing reliance on the letter sent by thethird respondent dated 3.3.2001 in his letter No.Na.Ka.No.128784/tp 3?3(tp 1)/2000 held that the petitioner has produced a bogus mark sheetfor getting admission in five year law course for the year 1998-99. 16. It is well settled that the departmental proceeding is aquasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasijudicial function and in a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedureis a part of the principles of natural justice. But in the case onhand, the impugned order was passed not only in flagrant violation ofprinciples of natural justice, but the first respondent arrived atthe conclusion that the petitioner produced the bogus mark sheetwithout any evidence available on record by merely placing relianceon a letter of communication sent by the third respondent dated3.3.2001, without examining the author of the letter, the thirdrespondent herein, to prove the contents of the said letter. Neitherthe third respondent appeared and participated in the enquiry nor the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent summoned the third respondent at the time ofenquiry. The first respondent has inferred the guilt of thepetitioner to the effect that the petitioner has produced the bogusmark sheet by placing reliance on the letter of the third respondentdated 3.3.2001. The first respondent treated the said letter of thethird respondent dated 3.3.2001 as gospel truth without scrutinisingand testing the credibility of such letter by summoning the thirdrespondent and by seeking materials from the third respondent forsubstantiating the allegation levelled against the petitioner by thethird respondent. 17. At this juncture it is relevant to refer the decision of theHon'ble Apex Court regarding the standard of proof in a domesticenquiry. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board ofSecondary and Higher Secondary Education V. K.S.Gandhi reported in(1991) 2 SCC 716 held as follows : "37. It is thus well settled law that strict rulesof the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisagedtherein do not apply to departmental proceedings ordomestic tribunal. It is open to the authorities toreceive and place on record all the necessary, relevant,cogent and acceptable material facts though not provedstrictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. Thematerial must be germane and relevant to the facts inissue. In grave cases like forgery, fraud, conspiracy,misappropriation, etc. seldom direct evidence would beavailable. Only the circumstantial evidence would furnishthe proof. In our considered view inference from theevidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguishedfrom conjectures or speculation. The mind is prone totake pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another andeven in straining them a little to force them to formparts of one connected whole. There must be evidencedirect or circumstantial to deduce necessary inferences inproof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferencesunless there are objective facts, direct of circumstantialfrom which to infer the other fact which it is sought toestablish. In some cases the other facts can be inferred,as much as is practical, as if they had been actuallyobserved. In other cases the inferences do not go beyondreasonable probability. If there are no positive provedfacts, oral, documentary or circumstantial from which theinferences can be made the method of inference fails andwhat is left is mere speculation or conjecture.Therefore, when an inference of proof that a fact indispute has been held established there must be somematerial facts or circumstances on record from which suchan inference could be drawn. The standard of proof is notproof beyond reasonable doubt "but" the preponderance of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ probabilities tending to draw an inference that the factmust be more probable." (emphasis supplied)If the case on hand is considered with the touch stone of theprinciple laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision citedsupra, then this Court has no hesitation to hold that the thirdrespondent not only withheld himself from participating in theenquiry and producing the evidence but also not proved the allegationlevelled against the petitioner even by preponderance ofprobabilities.18. This Court cannot lost sight of certain other infirmitiesand inconsistencies in this case. It is seen that the show causenotice issued by the first respondent dated 21.3.2001 reveals thatthe mark sheet produced by the petitioner was sent for verificationto the third respondent and in the counter, it is stated that thexerox copies of the mark sheets including the petitioner were sentfor verification to the Director of Government Examinations forverifying the genuineness of the certificates. The show cause noticedated 21.3.2001 reveals that the mark sheets were sent to the JointDirector of Government Examination on 1.2.1999, 10.2.1999 and8.1.2001 and there is no mention about the specific date on which themark sheet relating to the petitioner was sent. But in the counterfiled by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the mark sheet ofthe petitioner was sent for verification on 1.2.1999. There isabsolutely no whisper about seeking the original mark sheet producedby the petitioner by the third respondent in the counter filed by therespondents 1 and 2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals thatthe third respondent sought for the original mark sheet of thepetitioner through his communication dated 19.12.2000 andaccordingly, the said original mark sheet of the petitioner was sentto the third respondent. In spite of receiving the original marksheet from the first respondent, the third respondent has not takenany steps to get sample hand-writing of the petitioner and sent boththe original certificate and the sample hand-writing for the opinionof the hand-writing expert. Without adopting such procedure known tolaw, the third respondent carelessly and recklessly has come forwardwith the allegation that the petitioner produced the bogus mark sheetwithout assigning any valid reason in his letter dated 3.3.2001 sentto the first respondent herein.19. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the presentversion of the respondents 1 and 2 before this Court as their counteris to the effect that the third respondent through his letter dated17.04.2001 in letter No.128784/V3-3(VI)/2000 stated as hereunder :1.''The letter No.053268/nkep/16/98 dated 9.7.98 purportedto have been issued by the Directorate of Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Examinations is a forged one and that the petitionerherein S.R.Rajini has herself prepared it.2.The manually prepared, revised marks statement bearingRegistration No.564979/March 98 and Sl.No.AB 2653092 wasnot issued after re-totalling."It is relevant to note the above statement contained in the counterreferring the letter of the third respondent dated 17.04.2001discloses that it was alleged that the letter dated 9.7.98 purportedto have been issued by the Directorate of Government Examinations isa forged one. As far as the mark sheet is concerned, it is merelystated that the said mark sheet was manually prepared and the samewas not issued after re-totalling. A perusal of the disputed marksheet itself clearly shows that it was specifically stated under theseal that "certificate manually prepared" and contains the signatureof the Secretary. Even now the respondents 1 to 3 have not disputedthe signature of the Secretary contained in the disputed mark sheetand it is not their case that the signature of the Secretary found inthe disputed mark sheet is a forged one and there is absolutely noexplanation from the respondents 1 to 3 on this important aspect.20. Having miserably failed to produce prima facie materials toestablish even by preponderance of probabilities that the petitionerhas produced the forged and bogus mark sheet and having this Courtraised a crucial question as to what happened to the fate of theapplication submitted by the petitioner for re-totalling, therespondents raised a new plea before this Court by filing anadditional counter by the third respondent to the effect that thepetitioner has not at all applied for re-totalling. This plea wasneither alleged in the show cause notice dated 21.3.2001 nor raisedin the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2. There is also nofinding in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner hasnot at all applied for retotalling. Mr.Sankaran, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader took enormous pain to contend that the thirdrespondent not at all received the application from the petitionerfor re-totalling by placing reliance on the three registers producedby the third respondent before this Court, namely, (i) the registermaintained for making entries in respect of the original marksheets ; (ii) the register maintained for entering re-totalled marksheets and (iii) the register maintained for issuing retotalled marksheets. The fact remains that the third respondent has not producedthe register maintained for receipt of application for re-totallingof marks. It is further stated before this Court that theapplication for re-totalling would be destroyed after a period of sixmonths and for such contention there is no proof or material placedbefore this Court. It is pertinent to note that even in theadditional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, there isno proper explanation for this serious question regarding the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application of the petitioner preferred for re-totalling. It is seenthat in the said additional counter affidavit, it is stated that theapplication for re-totalling would be destroyed after a period of oneyear and as as such even for such explanation there is noconsistency. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that thethird respondent miserably failed to explain as to what happened tothe application preferred by the petitioner for re-totalling themarks but, on the other hand, as this Court already held that thepetitioner has proved by producing overwhelming materials to theeffect that she had applied for re-totalling. 21. Yet another vain attempt made by the third respondent, asper the additional counter, to contend that the mark sheet producedby the petitioner is a bogus one is that the communication about re-totalling of marks would be directly sent to the residential addressof the students and the revised mark sheet would be served only inperson after surrendering the earlier mark sheet. It is pertinent tonote that the perusal of the instructions given on the reverse of theapplication form does not indicate that the mark sheet would beissued to the candidates directly and not through the schoolauthorities. It is further seen from such instructions that afterre-totalling of marks, the change as well as no-change would beinformed to the respective candidates. 22. The third respondent has come forward with yet another pleabefore this Court raising in the additional counter affidavit filedbefore this Court dated 30.4.2009 that 140 blank mark certificateswere stolen from the Government Data Centre and the mark certificateproduced by the petitioner with the serial No.2653092 is one of thesaid 140 blank certificates and such stolen blank mark certificatehad been used for preparing the bogus mark certificate. It isfurther stated in the additional counter that on the basis of thecomplaint given by the department, a criminal case was registered andthe judgment was also delivered in that case. However, the factremains that the petitioner is not an accused in the said criminalproceedings and as such the third respondent cannot place reliance onsuch criminal proceedings.23. At the risk of repetition it is to be reiterated that thefirst respondent has passed the impugned order arriving at theconclusion that the petitioner has produced the bogus mark sheet forgetting admission in five year B.L. Course without any evidenceavailable on record. As already pointed out, there is not an iota ofevidence produced by the third respondent to substantiate theallegation that the petitioner produced bogus mark sheet. Therespondents 2 and 3 have not produced any material or examined anywitness to substantiate their allegation levelled against thepetitioner. The first respondent solely placed reliance on the letter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sent by the third respondent dated 3.3.2001 for coming to theconclusion that the petitioner has produced the bogus mark sheetwithout even examining the third respondent to prove the contents ofthe letter dated 3.3.2001. This Court has no hesitation to hold thatthe finding of the first respondent was neither based on any directevidence adduced by the third respondent or based on preponderance ofprobabilities but merely on surmises and conjectures.24. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer certain decisionsof the Hon'ble Apex Court. (i) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukunda Bore V. BangshidharBuragohain and others reported in (1980) 4 SCC 336 held as follows :"Under Article 226 a finding of fact of a domestictribunal cannot be interfered with. The High Court in theexercise of its special jurisdiction does not act as acourt of appeal. It interferes only when there is ajurisdictional error apparent on the face of the recordcommitted by the domestic tribunal. A finding based on noevidence or purely on surmises and conjectures or which ismanifestly against the basic principles of natural justice,may be said to suffer from an error of law with which theHigh Court can interfere."(emphasis supplied)(ii) In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation V. Virendra KumarJayantibhai Patel reported in (1997) 6 SCC 650, the Hon'ble ApexCourt held as hereunder,"High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution areentitled to issue directions, writs and orders forcorrecting the record of the inferior courts or thetribunal. It is true that the High Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot convert itselfinto a court of appeal and assess the sufficiency oradequacy of the evidence in support of the finding of factreached by the competent courts or the tribunals, but thisdoes not debar the High Court from its power to enquirewhether there is any evidence in support of a findingrecorded by the inferior court or tribunal. There is adifference between a finding based on sufficiency oradequacy of evidence and a finding based on no evidence.If the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal is based onno evidence, such a finding would suffer from error of lawapparent on the face of record."(emphasis supplied)(iii) In yet another decision in Secretary, ONCG Ltd., V.V.U.Warrier reported in (2005) 5 SCC 245 held as follows :"26. .... It is well settled that the jurisdiction ofthe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ equitable and discretionary. The power under that articlecan be exercised by the High Court "to reach injusticewherever it is found". More than fifty years before, inVeerappa Pillai V. Raman & Raman Ltd. (1952 SCR 583), theConstitution Bench of this Court speaking throughChandrasekhara Aiyar, J., observed (at SCR p.594) that thewrits referred to in Article 226 of the Constitution areobviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them"in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals orbodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction,or in excess of it, or in violation of the principlesof natural justice, or refuse to exercise ajurisdiction vested in them, or there is an errorapparent on the face of the record, and such act,omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifestinjustice"(iv) The Hon'ble Apex Court in a latest decision in Roop SinghNegi V. Punjab National Bank reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 referringits earlier decision held as follows :".... In exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 onsuch a plea, the High Court cannot consider the questionabout the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support ofa particular conclusion. That is a matter which is withinthe competence of the authority which dealt with thequestion ; but the High Court can and must enquire whetherthere is any evidence at all in support of the impugnedconclusion. ...." (emphasis supplied)25. The above well-settled principle of law laid down by theHon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cites supra is squarelyapplicable to the case on hand as in this case also, the firstrespondent has passed the impugned order not only in flagrantviolation of principles of natural justice but also arrived at theconclusion against the petitioner without any evidence available onrecord much less on preponderance of probabilities. The firstrespondent inferred from the communication sent by the thirdrespondent dated 3.3.2001 for arriving at his conclusion without anyevidence adduced by the third respondent to substantiate theallegation levelled against the petitioner. The conclusion of thefirst respondent is merely based on suspicion without any legalproof. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra in RoopSingh Negi's case also held as follows :"Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place ofproof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court isentitled to interfere with the findings of the fact ofany tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. (See https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Prakash Chand Jain (1969) 1SCR 735, Kuldeep Singh V. Commissioner of Police and Ors.(1999) 2 SCC 10)."26. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the settledprinciple of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is crystalclear that the case on hand is not a case of sufficient orinsufficient evidence in support of the conclusion of the firstrespondent but it is a clear case of no evidence and as such theimpugned order passed by the first respondent is vitiated by errorapparent on the face of the records which resulted in manifestinjustice to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order passedby the first respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly, theorder of the first respondent in his proceedings inNa.Ka.No.439/E/2001 dated 1.4.2002 signed on 12.4.2002 is herebyquashed.27. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant tothe order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.19095 of 2002 dated6.8.2002, the petitioner was allowed to continue her course and alsocompleted the five years course and as on date she has written allthe examinations except to the fact that the results have beenwithheld by the authorities concerned. Therefore, in view of theorder passed by this Court, the fifth respondent is directed todeclare the results of the petitioner from the third year onwards asthe results for first and second year were already declared and alsoit is made clear that in the event of passing her examinationthroughout, the petitioner is also entitled to get her degreecertificate.28. Before parting with this matter, this Court is constrainedto state that the authorities concerned should prescribe some timelimit for verification of the mark sheets submitted by the applicantsfor admission in any course in any college regarding its authenticityand genuineness. In this case, it is seen that the petitioner gotadmission into five year law course in the year 1998-99 and the firstrespondent claimed to have sent the mark sheet for verification tothe third respondent on 1.2.1999 and even that date is not very clearas the show-cause notice referred to about three dates, namely,1.2.1999, 10.2.1999 and 8.1.2001 and ultimately the petitioner, whohad completed two years of her course and was about to write herthird year examination, received the show cause notice dated21.3.2001 alleging that the mark sheet produced by her was the bogusone and after enquiry her admission into five year law course wascancelled by the impugned order 1.4.2002 signed on 12.4.2002. Theinordinate delay in verification not only resulted in grave prejudiceto the petitioner but also the petitioner has suffered harassment andhumiliation and undergone mental torture and agony. It is needlessto state that the sufferings of the younger generation from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disappointment and depression should be prevented by expediting theprocess of sending and scrutinising the genuineness of the markcertificates. 29. It is seen that the School Education Department of theGovernment of Tamil Nadu issued a Citizen's Charter 2008-2009,Preface of which reads hereunder :PREFACEThis Charter is a statement of Commitment of theeducational activities of the School Education Department tothe people of Tamil Nadu. The following Directorates are under the administrativecontrol of the School Education Department:-1.Directorate of School Education2.Directorate of Elementary Education3.Directorate of Matriculation Schools4.Directorate of Non Formal and Adult Education5.Directorate of Government Examination6.Directorate of Teacher Education, Research andTraining7.Teachers' Recruitment Board8.Directorate of Public LibrariesThe Commitment of each to the people of Tamil Nadu areelucidated in the succeeding pages.The above said Charter contains one of the schemes under theDirectorate of Government Examination which is in respect ofverification of Genuineness of the Mark Certificates under schemenumber (7) and the same reads hereunder :(7) Verification of Genuineness of the Mark Certificates Name of theSchemeVerification of genuineness of the markcertificates issued by this Department ofGovernment Examinations.Object of theSchemeAn effort to prevent fraudulent admission inthe education institutions and employment ingovernment/public/private sectors by means ofproducing bogus Certificates. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Name of theSchemeVerification of genuineness of the markcertificates issued by this Department ofGovernment Examinations.How to applyThe services of verification of genuineness ofmark certificates are offered against paymentof prescribed fees. The heads of Institutionhave to send requisition letter requestingverification of mark certificates along withthe Xerox copies of the same in duplicate alongwith the receipted chalan in token of havingpaid the prescribed fees. (i.e.) Rs.10/- perMark Certificate. Fees DetailsRs.10/- per Mark certificate is calculated andthe fees paid for the total number ofcertificates of the candidates to be verifiedshould be remitted by means of chalan in theState Bank of India treasury branch.Liason Officer1. Hr.Sec. Examinations -J.D. (Hr.Sec.)2. S.S.L.C. & O.S.L.C. - J.D. (P)3. Anglo Indian & Metric Examn. - A.S. (Matric)4. Technical Examination - A.S. (Technical)30. The schemes introduced by the School Education Department ofthe Government of Tamil Nadu under the Citizen's Charter 2008-2009are commendable one. The verification of genuineness of the markcertificates comes under Scheme number 7 of the Directorate ofGovernment Examination under the Charter as stated above. Thereading of the said scheme clearly shows that it is theresponsibility of the Heads of Institutions to send requisitionletters requesting verification of genuineness of mark certificatesalong with the xerox copies of the same. Therefore, this Court is ofthe considered view that the Heads of the Institutions, for example,the Principal in the case on hand, should take steps without anydelay to send the mark certificate for verification regarding itsgenuineness. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is ofthe considered view that it is high time for the authoritiesconcerned to prescribe time limit to avoid inordinate delay inverification of the genuineness of the mark certificate submitted bythe students seeking for admission in colleges/higher educationalinstitutions as the delay would defeat the very object of subjectingthe mark certificate for verification. Therefore, the Secretary,School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, shall takeimmediate and effective steps to prescribe time limit for sending themark certificates, which were produced by the students at the time ofadmission, by the Heads of Institutions for verification of itsgenuineness as well as for scrutinising the said mark certificates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about its genuineness within the prescribed time limit to bestipulated.With the above observation and directions, the petition ishereby disposed of. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrartsi/ggTo1. The Principal, Madurai Law College, Madurai.2. The Director, Directorate of Legal Studies, Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai-32.3. The Joint Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary), Chennai-6.4. The Headmistress, OCPM Government Higher Secondary School, Thallakulam, Madurai-2.5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai-28.Copy to :The Secretary,School Education Department,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.1 cc To Mr.F.D.Vasu, Advocate, SR.19774.1 cc To Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.20228.1 cc To Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate, SR.20026. W.P.No.14160 of 2002 MBS(CO)RVL 02.06.2009