BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11125 to 11127 & 24990 of 2023 J.Earnest Jabin : Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of Government Examinations, Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai – 600 006.

2.The Joint Director of Government Examinations, Director of Government Examinations, Chennai – 600 006.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Office, Kanyakumari District.

4.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

5.The Correspondent, Aided Higher Secondary School, Kallupalam, Edaicode Post, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent CEO in Na.Ka.No.9853/Aa1/2021 dated 30.05.2023 and the consequential order of removal from service passed by the fifth respondent school in Ref.No.Nil dated 30.05.2023, quash the same as illegal, null and void and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue working in the 5^th respondent aided higher secondary school, Kalluppallam in the post of P.G.Assistant (History) with continuity of service, all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary and allowances.

For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal for M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.5 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 30.05.2023 and the consequential order of removal from service passed by the fifth respondent dated 30.05.2023.

2.The issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner could be dismissed from service when there is no clinching evidence placed on record by the respondents to prove that the petitioner had produced bogus marksheet in respect of his higher secondary examination result in the year 2015, for the purpose of getting appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant [History].

3.The petitioner categorically contends that he never submitted any bogus certificate as claimed by the respondents for seeking appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant [History]. However, according to the respondents, the petitioner had submitted bogus marksheet pertaining to his higher secondary results and has illegally obtained appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant [History]

in the fifth respondent school.

4.Since the aforesaid issue is the only issue involved for this Court to consider, this Court need not go into the details of the petitioner's employment and the subsequent dates and events. The petitioner has been dismissed from service under the impugned orders on account of the claim made by the respondents that the petitioner had submitted bogus certificates namely the marksheets pertaining to his higher secondary results.

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner cannot be dismissed from service, since there is no clinching evidence produced by the respondents to prove that the petitioner had in fact submitted bogus certificates has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R.Sundararajan Vs. The Personal Assistant (General), to District collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur & another in W.A.No.1181 of 2021 dated 20.09.2023. He would submit that the following propositions were laid down in the said decision:

a) burden of proving fraud is on the party who is alleging the same;

b) benefit of doubt in cases of fraud being alleged against the party is to be given to the person against whom fraud is being alleged;

c) mere tendering of documents by the respondents is not a sufficient proof with regard to contents of the same.

6.Relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, le