ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by 1st respondent in PR.No.51/G1/2012 dated 14.11.2013 and confirmed by 2nd respondent in Rc.No.B2/06/85/2014 Appeal No.07/2014 dated 04.02.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits.

The petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Police Training College, Chennai, on 15.09.1993 on compassionate grounds. At the time of her appointment, she had submitted the Death Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate, Income Certificate, Educational Qualification Certificate, for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. When the certificate dated 10.06.2009 that her mother had not remarried, was sent for verification to the Tahsildar Office, Krishnagiri, the Tahsildar had certified that the said certificate was not issued from their office. Subsequently, the Income Certificate that her family members are not employed in the Government or Private Department dated 13.03.1992; Legal Heirship Certificate dated 05.07.1990; Death Certificate dated 20.05.1990; and immovable property details dated 05.01.1993, were also held to be bogus through a letter of the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri, dated 10.12.2010. In view of this, charges came to be framed against the petitioner through a Charge Memo dated 19.11.2012. In the Inquiry Report dated 28.10.2013, the charge against the petitioner was held as proved. The first respondent herein by the impugned order dated 14.11.2013, had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. On appeal, the second respondent herein had confirmed the order of punishment through the impugned order 04.02.2014. Both these original orders as well as the order in appeal, are put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Inquiry Officer had not rendered any finding with regard to the statement of the witnesses and that the concerned Tahsildar who had certified the documents submitted by the petitioner as bogus, was not examined and therefore, the punishment itself requires to be quashed.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter-affidavit and submitted that though the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.09.1993, she had evaded to submit all the original testimonials for the purpose of regularization and had ultimately, submitted the same only belatedly. Since the Tahsildar had certified that the documents submitted by the petitioner was not issued from their office, there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed.

4. The entire case revolves around the letter issued by the Tahsildar, holding that the six documents submitted by the petitioner, were not issued from their office. On the part of the Department, three witnesses were examined who are all employees of the District Police Office, Krishnagiri. The letter issued by the Tahsildar, Krishnagiri in Na.Ka.No.20896/2009(A3) dated 10.12.2010, was marked as a document in the inquiry. However, the concerned Tahsildar or any other authority from the Tahsildar's Office was not examined to prove this crucial letter. But for this letter dated 10.12.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, there is no other document or evidence to hold the charge against the petitioner, as proved.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & others' reported in '(2009) 2 SCC 570', had dealt with the manner in which the production of document in a departmental inquiry requires to be proved. As per the said decision, the contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses. Such a proposition was made in the following manner:

.... “14. Indisputably, a