- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Secretary, A.P Swre I Society v. J. Prathap And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 2 was temporarily appointed as an attender in the A.P. Social Welfare Residential School for Boys on 9 September 1985, and Respondent 1 received a similar appointment on 23 October 1989. A complaint alleging use of fake academic degrees by certain school employees prompted an internal verification. Both respondents were found to have submitted forged B.A. certificates. A formal inquiry was initiated, in which the respondents participated. The inquiry officer’s report, supported by confirmation from the Registrar of Andhra University, concluded that the degrees were not genuine. Respondent 2 admitted he had never taken the B.A. examination and had paid Rs 7,000 for a fabricated certificate; Respondent 1 admitted tampering with his marks after receiving only 28 marks in one paper.
Relying on the inquiry report, the appointing authority dismissed both respondents. They challenged the dismissal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge set aside the dismissal and substituted the punishment with withholding one increment with cumulative effect; the Division Bench later enhanced the penalty to withholding two increments. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was granted.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in substituting the punishment of dismissal with a minor penalty despite proven misconduct involving forged academic degrees.
- Whether the nature of the respondents’ misconduct warranted the original punishment of dismissal from service.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that forging academic degrees constitutes a grave and “unpardonable” act of fraud on both the institution and fellow employees. Permitting such misconduct to go unpunished would encourage similar wrongdoing and allow the respondents to gain unfair promotional advantage. The Court criticized the High Court for showing “magnanimity” where none was warranted, emphasizing that the seriousness of the offence outweighed considerations of leniency. Because the charges were clearly proved—reinforced by the respondents’ own admissions and the university’s verification—the Court found no basis for judicial interference with the disciplinary authority’s original decision.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgments set aside; original order of dismissal restored.
As a result, the respondents remain dismissed from service. The decision underscores the judiciary’s intolerance toward fraudulent qualifications in public employment and signals that courts will uphold strict disciplinary measures in such cases. No new legal precedent was expressly announced, but the ruling reinforces existing principles of integrity in public service.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. Respondent 2 was appointed temporarily as an attender in A.P Social Welfare Residential School for Boys in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 9-9-1985. Respondent 1 was similarly appointed on 23-10-1989.
3. The petitioner received a complaint that some of the persons working in the school had produced fake degrees. On verification, it was found that Respondents 1 and 2 had produced fake BA degrees and an inquiry was ordered to be conducted. Notice was given to the respondents who participated in the inquiry.
4. The inquiry officer gave a report to the effect that the charges against the respondents had been proved. The Registrar of Andhra University had sent a report dated 6-3-1999 to the effect that on verification it had been found that the BA provisional certificate produced by the respondents were not genuine. During the inquiry proceedings Respondent 2 herein had confessed that he had never appeared in the BA examination and the provisional certificate which he had obtained from one Shri Bal Reddy was fake and he had paid Rs 7000 to obtain the same. Respondent 1 had stated before the inquiry officer that he had appeared in the BA examination but only obtained 28 marks in one of the papers. On the advice of the said Bal Reddy, he had applied for revaluation and had paid a sum of Rs 1000. The inquiry officer found that there was tampering with the marks and the figure 28 was changed to 38 without any attestation.
5. On the basis of the inquiry report the services of the respondents were terminated. The said order was challenged and the learned Single Judge set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed the withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. In appeal, the Division Bench modified the punishment to them of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
6. Normally, this Court would not have entertained a petition like the present pertaining to employment of two individuals but for the fact that the allegation against the respondents were serious and permitting the perpetrators to get away with it will only encourage further similar cases. It is quite obvious that the respondents want to steal a march over their compatriots by showing that they had attained the higher degree of BA and laying of claim for promotion. The action of the said respondents in producing fake degrees and trying to perpetrate the fraud not only on the institution which was a school but also on other colleagues is clearly unpardonable. There was no occasion or justification for the High Court to have shown magnanimity in a matter like this.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the decision of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of punishment imposed by the appellant is confirmed.
Alert