ORDER :

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 24.11.2007 in his Reference No.P2/734/95/T(P) dismissing the petitioner from service and served on the petitioner on 27.11.2007 and quash the same.

2. For the appointment to the post of Mazdoor / Shore Labour at the respondent Port Trust, the name of the petitioner was considered pursuant to the application submitted by him in this regard. The minimum educational qualification for the said post of Mazdoor / Shore Labour is a pass in primary school standard ie., 5th standard. When application was filed in this regard, the petitioner had claimed that he passed 5th standard and in fact he had passed 8th standard also and therefore, on that basis, he would be eligible to be considered for appointment. Accordingly his candidature was considered and appointment was given to the petitioner on 27.03.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have completed probation and his probation also was declared and he was regularized in his position of Mazdoor / Shore Labour.

3. When he was continuing in the position, the respondent Port Trust had issued a communication on 29.03.1994 to the petitioner directing him to produce his Record Sheet i.e., School Certificate in original without fail. In response to the said demand, the petitioner, on 15.09.1994, had produced the Record Sheet, which according to the petitioner, was issued by the School, where he studied upto 8th Standard.

4. On receipt of the Record Sheet from the petitioner, the said Record Sheet was referred to the concerned educational authorities ie., to the District Educational Officer (DEO), Saidapet for verification and report. It seems that, the District Educational Officer, after verifying the Record Sheet produced by the petitioner, by getting a report from the Field Officer of the Education Department, has communicated to the respondent / employer that the School where the petitioner claimed to have been studied, was not at all functioning. Otherwise, there was no such school functioning in that locality.

5. In view of the categorical view expressed by the DEO concerned, the respondent had initiated the disciplinary proceedings, where charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 02.09.1995. Thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry, after giving all opportunities to the petitioner and after completion of the enquiry, when second show cause notice was issued, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the way in which the disciplinary proceedings was conducted, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.6336 of 1998, where a learned Judge of this Court passed an order on 09.04.2007, directing the respondents to consider the reply/representation dated 10.03.1998 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass orders after affording opportunity to the petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the explanation / representation given to the second show cause notice by the petitioner and after having considered the same, including the Enquiry Officer's report, where according to the Enquiry Officer, the charges against the petitioner were proved, the respondent, as disciplinary authority against the petitioner, has passed final order dated 24.11.2007, whereby it imposed the maximum penalty of removal of service against the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 24.11.2007, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

7. Mr. P.K. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the qualification prescribed for the said post of Mazdoor was only a pass in 5th standard, the petitioner since had completed 8th standard, he was fully eligible to be considered for the appointment. Accordingly, his candidature was considered and appointment order was also issued to the petitioner dated 27.03.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner completed the pr