IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 3.1.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION NO.42220 OF 2006 (T) (O.A.NO.8182 OF 2000) K.BABU ... Petitioner Vs. THE COLLECTOR THIRUVALLUR THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. ... Respondent Writ Petition No.42220 of 2006 came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.8182 of 2000 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, praying this Court to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Se. Mu. Na.Ka.No. 2426/99 Pa. A3 dated 31.08.2000 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mohanraj For Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr. R. Murali, G.A. O R D E R The petitioner, who was working as Panchayat Assistant in the Panchatti Panchayat, Sholavaram Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District filed O.A.No.8182 of 2000 challenging the order dated 31.8.2000 by the respondent-District Collector, wherein the petitioner was ousted from service. 2. The Tribunal admitted the O.A., on 9.11.2000. Pending the O.A., the Tribunal granted interim stay of the impugned order. The said order came to be extended without any further outer time limit by a further order dated 23.11.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 21.9.2001. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred and re-numbered as W.P.No.42220 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It is admitted by both sides that the petitioner on the strength of the interim order is still continuing in service. 5. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: i) The petitioner was employed as a Panchayat Assistant on 31.12.1990. Subsequently, he requested for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that he passed S.S.L.C. In support of his claim, he produced S.S.L.C Certificate issued allegedly by the Secretary, Board of Secondary School Examination, Tamil Nadu with Registration No.AA 4228766 / March' 1997. ii) Since the petitioner had passed the S.S.L.C. Examination as a private candidate, the said certificate was referred to the Director of Public Examinations, Chennai-6 for verification. The Director of Public Examinations, by his letter dated 15.10.1999, informed the respondent that the Certificate produced by the petitioner was bogus. On the strength of the report issued by the Director of Public Examinations, the District Collector issued a show cause notice dated 16.5.2000. Only the Panchayat President can remove the petitioner and not the District Collector. iii) Even before the issuance of show cause notice by an order dated 19.4.2000, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Panchayat Assistant and relieved from the office of the District Development Officer, Sholavaram. He was directed to join in his earlier post of Panchayat Assistant, Panchatti Panchayat. iv) The petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why he should not be removed from the post of Panchayat Assistant for having submitted a false S.S.L.C., Certificate claiming promotion. Subsequently by order dated 31.8.2000, it was stated that the petitioner after receiving the show cause notice did not give any explanation. Therefore, it was considered that he had not given any explanation and he was ousted from the post of Panchayat Assistant. It is this order, which was stayed by the Tribunal. v) In the reply affidavit, it was claimed that as the petitioner had attempted to deceive by giving a false S.S.L.C. Certificate and requested for promotion is again a criminal conduct and by seeking such promotion on the basis of the false educational certificate, it is also stated that further action is being taken and after investigating the matter, suitable action will be taken. vi) It was claimed that the case pointed out by the petitioner regarding one Sethumadhavan, who also immediately secured promotion to the post of Junior Assistant was merely reverted to the post of Panchayat Assistant. But in the case of the petitioner, action was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken because the Director of Public Examinations stated that since the S.S.L.C. Certificate was bogus, he should not be allowed to continue in service. 6. Mr.P.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that for holding the post of Panchayat Assistant, the educational qualification is 8th Standard and there is no dispute that the petitioner is having the requisite qualification. It is only for the promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, S.S.L.C., qualification is required. Therefore, the petitioner can be allowed to continue as a Panchayat Assistant on the basis of his original qualification. He also referred to the case of Sethumadhavan, another similarly placed person, who was given different treatment. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court presided by P.K.Misra, J (as he then was) in P. SEKAR VS. REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 646 for the grant of such relief. In that case, this Court having found a Government Servant not having the qualification for holding the post of Veterinary Livestock Inspector since the certificate produced by him was found to be bogus, on a consideration of the entire matter, directed the Department to continue him in his lower post, for which he was initially appointed. It was on the basis the educational qualification for the post was not S.S.L.C. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the further judgment of this Court in N. SEKAR VS. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, CHENNAI-5 reported in 2009 (4) CTC 158, wherein the earlier Sekar's case was referred to and followed. 9. Mr. R. Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner having produced a bogus educational certificate, had lost the right to continue in Government service. Therefore, the relief should not be granted in the present case. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner cannot have the right to get the post of Junior Assistant having failed to prove that he has the requisite qualification. Further, the certificate of S.S.L.C. Book produced was found to be false. 10. In such circumstances, it will be enough if a show cause notice as to why the petitioner's promotion/appointment should not be cancelled. If such course of action was taken, there was no necessity to hold an enquiry to demote an employer or his employment being cancelled. 11. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had entered into the service as a Panchayat Assistant. The respondent-department has stated that since the petitioner had failed to give an explanation, the charges levelled against him were proved. It must be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ noted that no charge is levelled against the petitioner for cancelling the post of Panchayat Assistant. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that his production of false S.S.L.C. Book was sufficient to remove him from the post of Panchayat Assistant as the Director of Government Examination recommended the removal of the petitioner. That cannot be a ground to remove that too without framing a concrete charge against the petitioner on that ground. 12. Further in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court had already taken the view that the Court can exercise its discretion to allow a concerned Government Servant to continue in the lower post instead of removing him from service while claiming for a higher post, he gave a false educational certificate. 13. An additional factor in the present case is that the petitioner continues to be in the service on the strength of the interim order of the Tribunal for the last 10 years. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to uphold the action of the respondent even in removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Assistant also. 14. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside insofar as the petitioner was removed from the post of Panchayat Assistant. It is made clear that the finding that S.S.L.C. Certificate produced by the petitioner is not valid, is not disturbed. The further action of the respondent in demoting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant is not disturbed. At the same time, the petitioner on the basis of his original educational qualification, is entitled to continue in the post of Panchayat Assistant. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kb To THE COLLECTOR THIRUVALLUR THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.337 W.P.No.42220 of 2006 RSY (CO) RH (1.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/