Court dismisses writ petition for disciplinary action against respondent for document manipulation.

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking disciplinary action against respondent No.3 for alleged document manipulation. The Court found the petitioner, a retired engineer, lacked standing to initiate proceedings post-retirement. It noted the documents were verified by the Board, deemed genuine, and accepted during respondent No.3's service without objection. Emphasizing the absence of legal basis and hinting at personal vendetta, the Court ruled in favor of respondent No.3, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner and returning original records to respondent No.1.

---

---

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 Rs. 10,000 payable to respondent No.3 within four weeks. The original records were to be returned to respondent No.1, concluding the judgment.

---