ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No.4562/04/K4, dated 21.05.2007 and the consequential order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.24225/2015/K3 dated 29.02.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

Heard Ms. A. Pramila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Shahjahan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein was appointed as an Office Assistant in the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 12.11.1991 on compassionate ground, owing to the death of his father K. Sundaram. The petitioner had joined the services on 15.11.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 21.01.1994. Since the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant is S.S.L.C., a proposal was sent to the Government for the purpose of regularizing the petitioner's service in the cadre of Junior Assistant. In turn, the Government had forwarded the petitioner's S.S.L.C. certificate to the State Schools Examination Board, Chennai, for verification. Consequently, the Secretary of the State Schools Examination Board, in his report dated 17.07.2003, had stated that the S.S.L.C. certificate produced by the petitioner was bogus and the Registration No.551966/April 1991 in the certificate was actually allotted to another candidate. In accordance with the letter of the Secretary of the State Schools Examination Board, dated 17.07.2003, the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') came to be framed against the petitioner in charge memo dated 23.03.2004. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, in which the charges against the petitioner were held as proved. The further explanation submitted by the petitioner on 05.01.2006 came to be rejected, through the impugned order of punishment dated 21.05.2007, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner on 08.06.2007 was also rejected on 29.02.2016. Challenging the original order of punishment, as well as the order-in-appeal, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner had sought for information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, seeking for details about his S.S.L.C. certificate Registration No.551966/April 1991, the Information Officer attached to the State Schools Examination Board, in his reply dated 22.09.2015, has stated that the said registration number belongs to the petitioner herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry was not properly conducted and the documents produced before the Enquiry Officer were not substantiated through oral witnesses.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that since the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant is S.S.L.C. and since the Secretary of the State Schools Examination Board, in is report dated 17.07.2003, has clearly stated that the certificate itself was bogus, the petitioner is disentitled from holding the post of Junior Assistant and therefore, he was subjected to an enquiry. It is also his submission that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner by following the principles of natural justice and both his explanation to the charges, as well as his further explanation, were duly considered before the order of punishment was issued. Since the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature, the resultant punishment is also proportionate to the charges.

5. I have given caref