O R D E R

The writ petition is filed for a writ a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.No.8163/2008/E2 dated 21.12.2008 and the 2nd respondent order dated 14.03.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and other attended benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Sweeper on

01.12.1990 and thereafter her services were regularized with effect from 12.03.2001. She was asked to do the work of the Sweeper and Office Assistant. During the tenure as Sweeper she discharged unblemished services. Whileso, the second respondent framed a charge memo on 04.02.2008 wherein it was stated that she had produced a fake certificate as if she had passed the 8th standard in Kannada Sanga Higher Secondary School at Madras. According to the petitioner to the post of Sweeper no educational qualification is required and therefore by producing the school certificate she did not gain any benefit out of it. The second respondent on the basis of the charge memo conducted enquiry and imposed a penalty of removal from service vide order dated 14.03.2008 against which she preferred a Revision Petition to the first respondent, but the first respondent confirmed the same vide order dated 31.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner left with no other remedy filed the above writ petition.

3.The second respondent filed the counter stating that the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on 01.12.1990 and her services were regularized with effect from 12.03.2001 as Office Assistant. At the time of petitioner’s regularization she submitted a bogus educational certificate as if she had passed the 8th standard. According to the respondents even though the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper, she was regularized as an Office Assistant based on her educational qualification (i.e.) 8th standard pass. The respondent further contended that as the petitioner was employed in the office for a long period of time, there was no necessity to suspect her. But in any event when the certificate verification was done, it was found that the petitioner had submitted a bogus certificate. The second respondent issued a charge memo dated 04.02.2008 and the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo on 08.02.2008. As the petitioner’s explanation to the charge memo was found to be unsatisfactory, on enquiry was conducted on 12.02.2008 and the Enquiry Officer on completion of enquiry submitted a report on 23.02.2008. The enquiry report along with a cause notice was issued to the petitioner, for which she submitted her explanation on 04.03.2008. The second respondent after following all the formalities and mandatory procedures and after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity passed the order of dismissal from service on 14.03.2008.

4.The second respondent contended that the petitioner had candidly admitted her guilty in the enquiry proceedings and that the petitioner had not stated anything about the submission of the bogus certificate in the writ petition and therefore her silence established her guilt. The second respondent denied the contention of the petitioner that no educational qualification was necessary for a Sweeper and submitted that the petitioner actually discharged the work of an Office Assistant and she was appointed as Office Assistant only on the basis of the fake and forged transfer certificate.

5.As the petitioner was found guilt of the charge of producing fake educational qualification certificate, she was removed from service. The second respondent therefore prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper, for which post no educational qualification was prescribed and that the educational qualification of 8th standard was mandated only for the post of Office Assistant. The lea