The Court upheld the dismissal of a public servant based on substantiated allegations of producing bogus qualifications after due inquiry, emphasizing misconduct impacts eligibility.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the orders in Pro. Na.

Ka. No.LLA.1/ 35237/ 14 dated 26.03.2015 on the file of the first Respondent, in Pro. Na. Ka. No. A4/ 712/ 2014 dated 30.06.2014 on the file of the Second Respondent and in Pro. Na. Ka. No. A8/ 3948/ 2013 dated 20.11.2013 on the file of the third Respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

(i) The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as surveyor-

cum-drauftsman in the year 1989 and had rendered continuous and unblemished service. His appointment was made after verification of his SSLC qualification and with due approval from the competent authorities. He further submitted that though his service were earlier terminated in 1994 on the ground of alleged lack of qualification. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.79 of 1995 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, against the order of termination, where the Tribunal, by order dated 17.01.2002, has set aside the termination and directed that his services be treated as continuous, which order has attained finality. After a lapse of nearly 17 years, a charge memo was issued by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore, alleging that the SSLC mark sheet relating to October 1995 examination produced by the petitioner was bogus. The petitioner denied the charges and explained that the certificate was genuine. However, the respondents imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and rejected the statutory appeals in a mechanical manner, without properly considering the petitioner’s explanation and the earlier order passed by the Tribunal.

(ii) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after an inordinate and unexplained delay of several years. Meanwhile, the petitioner had been in continuous service since 1989 where no objection was raised regarding his qualification for decades. The belated issuance of the charge memo is arbitrary, after allowing him to serve for a period of 24 years.

(iii) The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 12.09.2014 before the first respondent. Since, no orders were passed in the said appeal, he was constrained to file W.P.No.29948 of 2014 seeking a direction for disposal of the appeal, pursuant to which, this Court, by order dated 18.11.2014, directed the first respondent to pass orders within a stipulated time. Even thereafter, the appeal was rejected during the pendency of the contempt petition by a non-speaking order, without properly considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. Though it was stated that a further appeal could be preferred, unfortunately, there is no such provision for filing a third appeal under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules and the said remedy is neither effective nor efficacious.

(iv) Hence, having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. The submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents is as follows:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as field surveyor on compassionate grounds, subject to verification of his educational qualification. As per G.O.Ms.No.38, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 19.01.1987, a pass in SSLC with not less than 35% in each subject is mandatory.

(ii) On verification, it was found that the petitioner had not secu