The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate representation in employment applications and the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to adhere to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.415/2015 dated 07.01.2016 and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned suspension order dated 09.07.2016.

2. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class community. Originally, the petitioner fails in SSLC and subsequently, appeared in the private examination and passed in SSLC. The respondent has called for application to fill up the post of Sweeper and the petitioner''s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange under General Category. The respondent also issued call letter to the petitioner and directed him to attend the interview on 28.07.2011 along with all necessary certificates. At the time of interview, the petitioner had produced the required certificates and after verifying the same, the Appointment Committee appointed the petitioner on 28.07.2011 under General category. The petitioner also produced the physical fitness certificate. In the meanwhile, the respondent Executive Officer had entertained doubt to appoint the petitioner, hence he sought a clarification from the Regional Director of Panchayat Raj. After obtaining clearance from the said authority, the petitioner was appointed and the petitioner had joined the service and is working from 2011 onwards.

3. Subsequently the Joint Director had issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to appear before the Medical Board on 30.12.2015 for ascertaining the physical disability of the petitioner. On receiving the same, the petitioner had approached the respondent and informed that he is not physically handicapped person, in such circumstances, the physical examination is not necessary. However, it was informed to the petitioner that the medical examination was conducted for all the appointments made in the Panchayat. When the petitioner appeared before the Doctor, a specific question was asked to the petitioner whether the petitioner is physically handicapped and the petitioner replied that he is not physically handicapped. Thereafter, the Doctor has not conducted any physically examination or medical test. Subsequently, the respondent issued the impugned order of suspension dated 07.11.2016. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. At the time of admission, this Court has not granted any interim stay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent submitted that based on the suspension order, the petitioner was not allowed to continue his service.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that the appointment of sweepers, scavengers, drivers and other posts in the Panchayat ended up in huge scam. Therefore, the appointments made to such post were directed to be scrutinized and they are referred for medical examination. Based on the report, the appointees were either suspended or dismissed or subjected them to disciplinary enquiry and several steps were taken to set right the illegality of such appointment.

6. The Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner was not physically disabled person, but the post was allotted to the priority category of physically disabled person. Therefore, the impugned order was issued, charge memo was issued, enquiry was conducted and final order was not passed. The respondents are awaiting the result of this writ petition.

7. Heard Mrs.M.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records and documents submitted by the parties.

8. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of registering himself in the employment exchange, he has not mentioned that he is physically handicapped category at all. Even in the call letter issued to the petitioner, it is not mentioned about the petitioner in the category o