Navdeep
Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [2006] Insc 271 (3 May 2006)
Arijit
Pasayat & R.V. Raveendran
(Arising
out of SLP(C) No. 21409/2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave
granted.
Challenge
in this Appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing
the writ petition filed by the appellant who had questioned her termination of
services by the respondents 1 to 4 i.e. State of Punjab and its functionaries. The order of termination was passed
on the ground that she has tampered with her mark sheet to get employment.
Enquiry was conducted and it was found that she had tampered with the mark
sheet.
Background
facts in a nutshell are as follows :
After
passing the matriculation examination, appellant joined R.R. Bawa, DAV College
for Girls, Batala, Punjab under the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, (in
short the 'University') respondent No.5. In June, 1995 she passed the B. Sc.
(Economics), Part III examination securing 418 marks out of 800 marks. On the basis
of the mark list submitted, she was admitted to the B.Ed. course under the
University and passed the B.Ed. examination also. She was selected as JBT
teacher in a Government aided School i.e. Ved kaur Arya Girls High School, Quadian, Gurdaspur for teaching
mathematics. While working as a teacher she completed her M.A. (Economics)
examination by correspondence course from Punjab University, Patiala. While she was working as JBT teacher a news item was
published indicating that 55 teachers obtained fake degrees and their services
were terminated.
Name
of appellant was one of them. The orders of termination were passed on the
basis of the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.
Appellant
came to know that the allegations so far as she is concerned related to alleged
tampering of marks in B.Sc. Part III, that is she had actually secured 86 marks
in Economics and not 124, and in Computer Application she had secured 140 marks
and not 102 as was shown in the mark sheet produced by her. On verification of
the records from the University, it was clear that while her total marks
remained same, there was increase in the marks of Computer Application while
there was a decrease in marks of Economics.
A writ
petition was filed challenging the termination of her services. The High Court
issued the notices to the respondents and the University. An enquiry was
conducted by the University and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report which
clearly indicated that there was reduction of marks in one subject and increase
in the other. Stand of the appellant was that she has not got any benefit out
of the alleged tampering and she was not responsible for the same. But her
claim was not accepted. Though the Enquiry Officer found that she had not
obtained any advantage out of it, yet the Enquiry Report was to the effect that
the obvious purpose for tampering was to obtain a certain percentage of marks
required for being eligible for admission. After verifying the documents in
question, it was concluded that she had tampered with the mark sheet. It was
concluded that there was only one purpose with which the tampering was done
i.e. to take advantage in various admissions and selections in a government job
as a teacher. The High Court accepted the report and dismissed the writ
petition.
Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the Enquiry Officer had himself came
to hold that the appellant has not taken any advantage. In any event she had
higher qualification than the minimum educational qualification required for
the post of a teacher and, therefore, even ignoring the disputed marks, she was
clearly eligible.
In
response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that one who seeks
equity to be done must come with clean hands. The various documents examined by
the Enquiry Officer clearly reveal that it was appellant herself who was
responsible for the tampering. Her so called ignorance and claim of innocence
is clearly untenable. When it was noticed that she had been caught, a feeble
plea was taken that she did not verify the correctness of the marks with the
official records. In the records of the College from where the mark sheet was
taken, the correct marks were recorded. She had signed in token of having
verified the marks.
The
Enquiry Officer's report is based on evaluation of the materials examined by
him. There is no dispute raised by the appellant that in fact she had secured
86 marks in Economics and not 124, and similarly in Computer Application she
had secured 140 marks and not 102. The obvious purpose for the change as has
been rightly noticed by the Enquiry Officer, is to project that she had secured
certain percentage of marks which made her eligible for admission into the
higher courses.
In any
event, the Enquiry Officer's conclusions cannot be termed as perverse to
warrant any interference. That being so, the action taken by the authorities
cannot be faulted.
But at
the same time it is not disputed by the respondents that the appellant possess
the minimum educational qualification for admission even though the tempted
marks are out of consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is
right in his submission that a person who resorts to tampering of mark sheet
should not be shown any leniency. But considering the fact that she had
rendered about 10 years of service without almost any blemish and appears to
have otherwise a good academic record, on the peculiar facts of the case, the
Government would do well to consider whether a fresh appointment can be given to
her ignoring the tampered marks. Considering the peculiar circumstances, the
matter may be considered in its proper perspective taking into account the
various factors. It is entirely in the discretion of the Government, and there
is no mandate issued by us.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Back