Suspension orders must be based on specific charges, and prolonged suspension without a reasoned order violates established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

[M.S. RAMESH, J.]

(PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 9757 of 2024 dated 06.08.2024.)

Challenging the order dated 06.08.2024 in W.P.(MD)No. 9757 of 2024, the appellant is before this Court with this Writ Appeal.

2. It is the case of the respondents herein that for the post of Panchayat Secretary, a pass in SSLC is an essential educational qualification and though the appellant was appointed on 01.11.1996, he had been reminded on several occasions to furnish his SSLC mark statement, which he had failed and therefore, he was placed under suspension through an order dated 27.12.2022, which came to be challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.9757 of 2024. The respondents herein had taken a specific stand before the Writ Court that the appellant herein had produced some fake certificates before the authorities, which entries were recorded in his Service Register and therefore, he was placed under suspension and a charge memo was also issued on 07.02.2023. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the contention of the respondents, had recorded in his order dated 06.08.2024, that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to production of fake SSLC certificate at the time of his appointment and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition, with a direction to the authorities to conclude the domestic enquiry within a stipulated time. This order in the writ petition is under challenge in the present intra court appeal.

3. We have perused the appellant's suspension order dated 27.12.2022. In the recitals therein, it is claimed by the respondents that a pass in SSLC is an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary and though several reminders were given to the appellant to produce the SSLC certificate, he had failed to do so and therefore, had placed him under suspension.

4. Subsequently, three charges were levelled against the appellant herein through the charge memo dated 07.02.2023.

4.1. The first charge against the appellant herein is that from the year 2021 onwards, the respondents have been issuing several notices, calling upon the appellant to produce his SSLC certificate, to which he had not replied and when he was subjected to a preliminary enquiry, it was found that he had not completed his 10th standard, but had undergone a pre-foundation course, which is not the prescribed qualification for the post of a Panchayat Secretary and therefore, he did not possess the essential educational qualification.

4.2. The second charge against him is that when enquiry was conducted, the appellant had submitted his explanation stating that he had failed in the 10th standard examination on two occasions in the year 1988 and 1992 and had later completed the pre-foundation course only in the year 2012, which is unacceptable.

4.3. The third charge against him is that in spite of specific orders of his superiors, the appellant had not responded to the directions and therefore, had not shown devotion and sincerity in his duties.

4. Neither the suspension order, nor the charge memo, narrates about the fake SSLC certificate allegedly given by the appellant to the authorities. On the other hand, such a claim appears to have been made, only in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, before the Writ Court. It is only on the basis of this statement that the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9757 of 2024, dated 06.08.2024, reads as follows:

“4.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents authority has contended that SSLC was a required mandatory qualification at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner as Panchayat Clerk and he had placed some fake certificate before the authorities to make entry in the Service Register book and therefore, the petitioner has been placed under