ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate for fourth respondent and learned counsel for the fifth respondent and perused the records.

2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the second respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Aa 1 (2)/2599/2012 dated 29.01.2019 removing him from service as being illegal with consequential direction to quash the impugned proceedings.

3. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in TANGEDCO and had died in harness on 19.10.1998; that he was appointed on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant on 21.10.2007; that he was appointed on compassionate ground had passed SSLC examination and also he possessed Diploma in Textile Technology; that at the time of appointment, he had submitted all the original certificates including SSLC mark sheet; and that he was working honestly and sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of the office superiors from the date of his appointment.

4. Petitioner contended that he had appeared for 10^th Standard examination in April, 1993; that he was issued with certificate bearing No.AA0620026 dated 22.06.1993 declaring him as failed in English subject; that he had applied for re-totaling through the fifth respondent School; that on re-totaling, his marks in English was revised as 52 marks and he was declared as passed in the SSLC examination by the fourth respondent; that he was also issued with a revised SSLC mark sheet with Serial No.0822795; and that he thereafter joined Diploma in Textile Technology in the year 1995 and successfully completed the course in October, 1999 and had joined PWD Department in the year 2007 on compassionate ground.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on being provided with appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents claim to have sent his SSLC mark sheet for verification; that the fourth respondent claims that their records do not reveal any re-totaling/re-valuation in English paper in the relevant board examination; that pursuant to request made by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Coimbatore by letter dated 23.11.2009, the fifth respondent by letter dated 26.11.2009 categorically stated that as per the records maintained by them, the SSLC mark sheet submitted by the petitioner is genuine and had been issued by the competent authorities after re-totaling; and that the college where petitioner took admission also got it verified while admitting him into Diploma in Textile Technology in the year 1995, with the Department of Government Examination who had confirmed the said certificate as genuine.

6. Petitioner further contended that the second respondent without considering the confirmation issued by the fifth respondent had issued order dated 03.01.2012 for initiation of departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution against him; that the said order was challenged by him before this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.1659 of 2012; that this Court by order dated 21.02.2017 had set aside the said proceedings initiated; and that this Court however granted liberty to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the second respondent had issued show cause notice dated 06.05.2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution should not be initiated against him; that he submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.06.2017 stating that his SSLC mark sheet is genuine and requested to drop the proceedings; that the second respondent after about one year thereafter, all of a sudden, by proceedings issued in September, 2018 placed him under suspension alleging that the SSLC mark sheet produced by him at the time of