2020 (2) TMI 1459 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold disciplinary enquiry against the respondent No.3 inasmuch as the genuineness of his marks cards and diploma certificates at Annexures-A, B, C and D are concerned - Seeking to prosecute the respondent No.3 for manipulating the said documents - HELD THAT - The writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected firstly for the reason that the petitioner claiming to be the erstwhile superior officer of the respondent No.3 who is now retired, cannot seek the relief of initiating disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. If any such fraud alleged said to have been committed by the respondent No.3, ought to have been discovered by the petitioner during his service period in order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3. The petitioner/officer after his retirement becomes functus officio. The writ of mandamus could be issued only in the circumstances where the statutory authorities fail to perform their functions vis- -vis the fundamental right of the petitioner. The petitioner must establish that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty, by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting. Such duty may be one imposed by the Constitution, Statute, Common Law or by Rules or Orders having force of law.It is well settled principle that there must be a demand and a denial in substance by the authority concerned in order to claim the relief of writ of mandamus. It is ex-facie apparent that there is neither vested right nor any such request/representation/attempt made by the petitioner with the employer to examine the allegations now raised against the respondent No.3. No legal rights/fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. No mandamus could be issued just to set right or settle the individual differences or disputes. The Writ Court cannot be used as a tool to resolve the personal enmity or such inter-se disputes. It is significant to note that the third respondent is now retired from service on 31.07.2019. The petitioner has filed an application I.A-1/2018 seeking for a direction to the respondent No.1 not to release any retirement benefits to the respondent No.3 until the disposal of the writ petition. This conduct of the respondent would necessarily indicate his personal vengeance against the respondent No.3. The writ petition being bereft of any substance, stands dismissed with cost of ₹ 10,000/- payable to the respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking disciplinary action against respondent No.3 for alleged document manipulation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a retired engineer from the University, filed a writ petition requesting disciplinary action against respondent No.3 for presenting fake marks cards and certificates to secure employment. The petitioner argued that the marks cards and certificate were signed by an unauthorized person, casting doubt on their authenticity. The petitioner urged for a disciplinary inquiry and criminal prosecution against respondent No.3, alleging fraud in securing employment.

The respondent No.1, through its counsel, submitted that the marks cards and certificate of respondent No.3 were verified by the Board for genuineness. The Board certified the documents as genuine, dated 29.01.2003. The respondent No.1 contended that initiating disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.3 based solely on the petitioner's allegations, without substantial evidence, was unwarranted.

In response, the counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the petitioner lacked standing to file the writ petition, alleging personal vendetta and malafide intentions. It was emphasized that all consolidated marks cards of respondent No.3 were forwarded to the Board by the employer, respondent No.1, and found genuine after verification. The counsel sought the dismissal of the writ petition on these grounds.

The Court found the writ petition misconceived, highlighting that the petitioner, as a retired officer, could not initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings against respondent No.3 post-retirement. The Court noted that the petitioner's actions appeared to stem from personal vendetta, lacking legal basis for the relief sought. Mandamus could only be issued when statutory authorities failed in their duties towards a petitioner's legal rights, which was not the case here.

The Court examined the original documents, attested by the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Technical Education, Bengaluru, confirming the genuineness of respondent No.3's marks cards and certificates. It was noted that the petitioner, as the superior officer during respondent No.3's service, had accepted these documents without objection, raising concerns only after retirement.

Given the lack of substance in the writ petition, the Court dismissed the petition, imposing a cost of ?10,000 payable to respondent No.3 within four weeks. The original records were to be returned to respondent No.1, concluding the judgment.