Special leave granted.

Respondent No. 2 was appointed temporarily as an attender in A.P. Social Welfare Residential School for boys in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 9th September, 1985. Respondent No. 1 was similarly appointed on 23rd October, 1989.

The petitioner received a complaint that some of the persons working in the school had produced fake degrees. On verification, it was found that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had produced fake B.A. degrees and an inquiry was ordered to be conducted. Notice was given to the respondents who participated in the inquiry.

The inquiry officer gave a report to the effect that the charges against the respondents had been proved. The Registrar of the Andhra University had sent a report dated 6th March, 1999 to the effect that on verification, it had been found that the B.A. provisional certificate produced by the respondents were not genuine. During the inquiry proceedings respondent No. 2 herein had confessed that he had never appeared in the B.A. examination and the provisional certificate which he had obtained from one Shri Bal Reddy was fake and he had paid Rs. 7, 000/- to obtain the same. Respondent No. 1 had stated before the inquiry officer that he had appeared in the B.A. examination but only obtained 28 marks in one of the papers. On the advise of the said Bal Reddy, he had applied for revaluation and had paid a sum of Rs. 1, 000/-. The inquiry officer found that there was tampering with the marks and the figure of 28 was changed to 38 without any attestation.

On the basis of the inquiry report the services of the respondents were terminated. The said order was challenged and the learned single Judge set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed the withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. In appeal, the division bench modified the punishment to them, withholding two increments with cumulative effect.Normally, this Court would not have entertained a petition like the present, pertaining to employment of two individuals but for the fact that the allegation against the respondents were serious and permitting the perpetrators to get away with it, will only encourage further similar cases. It is quite obvious that the respondents want to steal the march over their compatriots by showing that they had attained the higher degree of B.A. and laying claim for promotion. The action of the said respondents in producing fake degrees and try to perpetrate the fraud not only on the institution which was a school but also on other colleagues, is clearly unpardonable. There was no occasion or justification for the High Court to have shown magnanimity in a matter like this.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the decision of the single Judge as well as the division bench of the High Court is set aside and the order of punishment imposed by the appellant is confirmed.