Sri H Subramani vs The Registrar Of Vigilance
2022 Latest Caselaw 11959 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.1419 OF 2021 (S-DE)
                          IN
             W.P. NO.15652 OF 2018 (S-DE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
AGED 44 YEARS
R/O BYATANPUR VILLAGE
MUSTOOR POST, BYRAKUR HOBLI-563132
MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563132.
                                     ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. BABU RAO M, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE REGISTRAR OF VIGILANCE
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

2.     THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
       PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
       KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563101.

3.     ADMINISTRATIVE SHERISTEDAR
       SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT
                            2



    MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT -563130.

                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SWARNITH SATYA PRASAD, ADV., FOR
    MR. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1
        HCLC SERVED)
                          ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
NO.15652/2018 (S-DE) DATED 17.11.2020.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed against an order

dated 17.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, by

which writ petition preferred by the appellant has

been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that a recruitment Notification dated

21.08.2008 was issued by the District Court, Kolar,

for recruitment of Peons. The appellant along with 30

other candidates were appointed as Peons.

3. A departmental enquiry was initiated

against the appellant on the charge that he has

furnished a manipulated marks card of VII standard

examination. A departmental enquiry was held

against the appellant. Witnesses were examined in

the departmental enquiry and thereafter the enquiry

report submitted by the Enquiry Officer in which

charge leveled against was found to be proved.

4. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration

of the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of

dismissal from service. The appellant challenged the

aforesaid order in a writ petition, which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that appellant was not aware about the

correct marks, which he had obtained in the VII

standard examination. It is further submitted that

another person viz., T.Subramani also passed the VII

standard examination in the year 1993 and said

T.Subramani had obtained 393 marks out of 500

marks, whereas, the appellant had secured 465

marks. It is therefore, urged that the learned Single

Judge also be set aside.

6. We have considered the submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record. Under

Rule 20 of Karnataka Civil Services (General

Recruitment) Rules, 1977, an action of a candidate in

submitting fabricated documents or the documents,

which have been tampered with, amounts to

misconduct. In the instant case, the appellant had

submitted marks card of VII standard examination, in

which the appellant was shown to have secured 465

marks. On verification, the aforesaid marks card was

found to be fake. The disciplinary authority on

consideration of the evidence on record viz., the oral

evidence of Srinivas Gowda and Sri.Raja Babu as well

as the deposition of the Principal of Sri Vinayaka

School, Nangali, held that the marks sheet produced

by the appellant was fake and he had secured 393

marks. No evidence was led to prove the plea taken by

the appellant that the marks obtained belonged to

classmate of the appellant viz., Sri.T.Subramani and

not to the appellant.

7. Securing an appointment by means of a

fake document is a serious misconduct. The findings

recorded by the disciplinary authority are based on

meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. The

aforesaid findings of fact are rightly not been

interfered by the learned Single Judge.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS