The central legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement for unimpeachable evidence and acceptable proof before finding an employee guilty of misconduct in employment disputes within cooperative societies.

1. Heard both sides. The petitioner had originally jointed as an Assistant Salesman in the fourth respondent society on 29.8.1986. He claims that he had passed 8th standard and had produced an educational certificate to that effect. Subsequently, a complaint seems to have been received by the Chief Ministers grievance Cell about the petitioner committing a fraud on the society. On a query made by the CMs office, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 was ordered. During the enquiry, it was found out that the petitioner had given a false educational certificate.

2. Therefore, a charge memo, dated 26.2.2007 was given to the effect that the petitioner did not get through 8th standard. The qualification required for that post was 8th standard pass. An enquiry was ordered after getting the petitioners explanation. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of charges. Subsequently, the petitioner was given a copy of the Enquiry report along with a show cause notice, dated 23.5.2007. The petitioner gave his explanation, dated 1.6.2007. The fourth respondent passed an order, stating that the petitioners claim that he had studied in TELC Middle School, Keelapudur, Usilampatti, Madurai District was not truthful and his educational certificate was not genuine as informed by the Headmaster of that School. Therefore, the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 4.7.2007.

3. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Act before the revisional authority, challenging the order of removal. The revisional authority, by an order, dated 13.2.2008 allowed the revision petition and the impugned order, dated 4.7.2007 was set aside. The revisional authority found that there was no acceptable evidence. The school Headmaster had not given categorical statement that it was a false certificate. In effect, the statement of the Headmaster of the School was unconvincing.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority, the Society (R-4) filed a revision before the State Government i.e. first respondent. In that revision, notice was ordered to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a counter statement, dated 17.2.2009. It was thereafter, the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.44, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 17.4.2009 allowed the revision filed by the Society and the order of the Additional Register, i.e. second respondent, was set aside. It is against this order the petitioner has come forward to challenge the same.

5. In the operative portion of the order in paragraph 4, the first respondent observed as follows:

"4.On hearing the argument of both the sides, the issue that had to be decided was whether the second certificate given by Thiru K.Thangam was bogus or not. The School Head Master in his letter dated 5.9.2005 has clearly stated that no certificate has been issued to the above person in admission No.3875 and the certificate in question is bogus. However, the Additional Registrar while examining the revision petition, the above individual has personally contacted the Head Master of the TELC Middle School, Kilpudur who has informed him that the school records were destroyed in the fire and thereore he could not exactly inform whether the petitioner had studied in the school or not and that if a report is called for him he would give a report. But no mention has been made about the fire accident or consequent burning of the records and also he has stated that since 1963-64 admission register had not been produced to him, he has given such a reply. In 2005 it had been clearly stated that the individual had not studied in the school. But after 3 years (i.e) in 2008 giving such a report by the Head Master is unacceptable. Moreover, when the report is already clear the action of the Additional Registrar in having obtained the explanation of the Head Master again seems unnecessary and with malafide intention. In view of th