1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.382 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 S. Murugan : Appellant vs. 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, VI Floor,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2 The Commissioner, Periyakulam Municipality, Periyakulam,Theni. : Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in W.P. No.7860 of 2008. Prayer in W.P. No.7860 of 2008: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in ref.Roc.No.28812/2002/H2 dated 27.12.2003 served on the petitioner on 30.07.2008 in so far as directing the 2nd respondent herein to place the petitioner under suspension and conduct de novo enquiry are concerned and the consequential impugned order of the 2n respondnet in ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1622/2008/C1 dated 31/07/08 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service as Junior Assistant from 4.4.2002 with all monetary benefits, backwages and attendent benefits accrued thereon. For appellant Mr. K. Appadurai JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in W.P. No. 7860 of 2008. 2. The above said writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the first respondent and also the consequential order dated 31.07.2008 passed by the second respondent. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 19.11.2010. As against the said order, this writ appeal is filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant; subsequently, his name came within the zone of consideration for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and for the said consideration, the appellant/writ petitioner had submitted certain certificates relating to his educational qualification; on receipt of the information from the Education Department that those certificates were forged ones, the department authorities have framed charges and an order of dismissal from service was passed as against the appellant/writ petitioner; as against the said order, he preferred an appeal and in the appeal, on technical ground, that order of dismissal from service was set aside and a de nova enquiry was directed to be conducted; challenging that, a writ petition in W.P. No.7860 of 2008 was filed and the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2010 and as against the said order dated 19.11.2010, this writ appeal is filed. 4. The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is that though a decision was taken for a de nova enquiry in 2004, that order was served to him only in 2008, consequently, that order by which de nova enquiry was ordered has to be set aside. 5. The only grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner is that though an order was passed in 2003, the same was served to him only in 2008 But, a perusal of the document filed in the typed set of papers reveals that based on this order, in 2008, the appellant/writ petitioner was reinstated in service and apart from this, by order dated 18.12.2007, the appellant/writ petitioner was also acquitted in the said criminal case Consequently, this order dated 2003 has been communicated to the appellant/writ petitioner in 2008 and as far as the case in hand is concerned, the allegation levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner is only based on documentary evidence and not on oral evidence and based on the information given by the Education Department, when the authorities come to the conclusion that the appellant/writ petitioner's certificates pertaining to his academic qualifications are bogus ones, certainly, they have got a right to make an enquiry about the same and the Court cannot prevent that enquiry from being conducted. 6. As far as the delay is concerned, if the issue in question has to be decided based on the oral evidence, certainly, the delay will have an impact in the enquiry to be conducted. But, when the issue can be decided only based on the document and when the relevant certificate itself is a bogus one, we are the considered opinion that even this delay will not have an impact. Having accepted the order dated 27.12.2003 which has been served to the petitioner in 2008 and having re-joined the service, now, the appellant/writ petitioner takes this stand. When an allegation of production of bogus educational certificates has been levelled, certainly, the concerned authority has got a right to enquire into that and take a decision and the concerned authority cannot be prevented from doing so. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, VI Floor,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2 The Commissioner, Periyakulam Municipality, Periyakulam, Theni. +1cc to Mr.K.Appadurai, Advocate SR.No.7738 +1cc ot The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.7989 W.A. (MD) No.382 of 2011 cad PA/09.06.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/