Deserves No Sympathy: Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Removal Of Teacher Who Allegedly Applied To Handicapped Category Post With Fake Medical Certificate

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while upholding the removal of a teacher accused of applying to the handicapped category post with fake medical certificate, stressed that such cases deserves 'no sympathy.'

The Court was dealing with a writ-petition filed by one teacher against one Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's ruling setting aside her removal from service, however granting liberty to department for her discharge.

The division-bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, "We are of the considered view that the punishment of removal from service deserved to be maintained by the Tribunal and it legally erred in interfering with the same. The petitioner deserved no sympathy or indulgence as shown by the Tribunal."

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ch. Satyanarayana while the respondent was represented by Government Pleader Sri Nagaraju Naguru.

The petitioner had applied for the post of School Assistant (English) as a physically handicapped person, mentioning in the application form ‘Hearing Handicapped, Percentage:(>70%)’ and was finally appointed to the one vacant position. However, later on, one D.Narayana who had also participated in the selection process, made a representation/complaint that the petitioner had produced bogus medical certificate of hearing impaired from Government Hospital for obtaining appointment order. Subsequently, she was called for re-assessment which she first, didn't attend and later submitted representation stating that she was not shown as having been appointed under Hearing Impaired (HI) category and she was not physically handicapped person with HI.

Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against her and eventually she was removed from the service. She challenged the order of removal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order observed that as the applicant produced the false certificate of hearing impaired, she was not entitled for appointment and liable for discharge from service instead of removal from service. It accordingly set aside the order of removal and granted the respondents liberty to discharge the applicant from service. The petitioner has taken exception to the order as issued by the Tribunal.

While Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not submit the fake certificate of Physically handicapped PHC(HI) and there was no evidence for the same. He further submitted that the appointment was not given to the petitioner under the quota of physically handicapped.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s appointment was under physically handicapped quota; there was one post under this quota for which she applied as she ticked yes at serial 14, against the question “Are you a physically Handicapped person” and with respect to the deformity, she stated ‘>70%’. In her online application form, she mentioned, against ‘type of Handicapped’ ‘Hearing Handicapped, Percentage:(>70%)’.

The Court at the outset noted that it is evident that the petitioner applied for the post as physically handicapped person. The Court rejected Counsel for petitioner's submission and observed, "The certificate of physically handicapped of the petitioner, submitted before the Authority has been annexed with the counter affidavit. It was submitted that, the same was not filed by the petitioner. But, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner herself filled in the application form that she belonged to physically handicapped quota, which is not disputed as also considering that the appointment was under the quota of physically handicapped for which there was one post (vide para 4 of counter affidavit supported with exhibit at page 114 of counter affidavit; Sl.No.20 – HI(W) of post), the petitioner filling in the application form ‘Medical certificate from Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad is due’ and later on such certificate coming on record; and the petitioner being the beneficiary of such certificate, it can not be believed that the certificate was not filed by the petitioner."

Even if it be taken that it was not filed by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot plead such innocence, in the background of the sequence of facts narrated above, the court added. 

"The petitioner obtained the appointment knowing well that she did not fall in that category of physically handicapped, but inspite thereof filling in the application form physically handicapped and later on, the certificate of physically handicap in proof of the application, coming on record, all that was only to secure the appointment, and she successfully got the appointment. The petitioner’s involvement is apparent. The certificate was issued by Dr.V.Ramana Rao, Superintendent, SVRRGGH, Tirupati, on 20.10.1999 whereas the said doctor had retired from service on 31.12.1997. It is a clear case where the petitioner playing fraud obtained an appointment on the post, reserved for handicapped person by filling application with false details, and based on fake certificate. The certificate was fake, is substantiated from the affidavit filed by the Superintendent, SVRRGGH, Tirupati, besides, it being the own case of the petitioner that she is not physically handicapped." the court concluded. 

Further, the court was not convinced with the approach being adopted by the Tribunal nor with the reasoning assigned for discharge instead of removal.

"Once, the Tribunal found that it was a case of fraud and forgery for getting appointment to the post reserved for physically handicapped person and thus depriving the genuine candidate, of the benefit meant for such category of person, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of petitioner’s removal from service," the court observed. 

It cited Supreme Court ruling in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D.Harmalkar wherein it was observed that producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct and that it raises issue of trust as to how can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer. The court went on to cite another Supreme Court ruling in Bhubaneswar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das wherein it was observed that the effect is to displace a genuine candidate, who would otherwise have been entitled to the post.

In face of the finding that the finding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the directions as issued, the court in addition to Article 226, invoked its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to keep the Tribunal/courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The Court accordingly modified the order of the Tribunal to one of dismissal, maintaining the order of the petitioner’s removal from service however, mentioning that in its view as well dismissal from service would have been the appropriate punishment in such matter. 

The writ-petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: G.Venkata Naga Maruthi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Two Others  

Click here to read/ download order: