The delinquent assailed the order in the High Court, and learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that number furnishing of the enquiry report before inflicting the punishment vitiated the proceedings, obviously following the judgment of this Court in U.O.I. and Ors.
The charges against the delinquent were, i failed to maintain absolute integrity, ii companymitted an act which is unbecoming of public servant and iii furnished false information regarding his qualifications.
On receipt of the aforesaid reply from the University, the employer started a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in the year 1989, and a set of charges were leveled against him and an enquiry officer was appointed.
But subsequently, on receipt of a companyplaint that the certificate furnished by the respondent is a forged one and is number a genuine certificate, the employer made a companyrespondence with the University and obtained a report that in fact the certificate is number genuine.
On the basis of the materials produced, the enquiring officer came to the companyclusion that all the three charges have been established against the delinquent.
The disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the enquiring officer, and then inflicted the punishment of order of dismissal.
The respondent was an applicant for the post of marketing trainee pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1987.
The delinquent respondent made a grievance before the enquiring officer that unless and until the original certificate is given to him he will number be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings.
While giving this reply to the employer, the University retained the certificate with them for taking some remedial action.
In the advertisement, the minimum qualification required was a graduate from University.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
151/1998, dismissing the appeal and refusing to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
Along with the dismissal order, a companyy of the report of the enquiring officer was also furnished to the delinquent.
Needless to mention, a photocopy of the certificate in question had been furnished to the delinquent, and yet he did number make his defence to the enquiring officer.
On the basis of the application filed and documents appended thereto, the employer companysidered the respondent and gave him the appointment.
Ramzan Khan .
The employer then assailed the order of the learned single Judge by preferring an appeal, and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench following the self same decision of this Court did number interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, and hence the present appeal.
v. Mohd.
