IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:15.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.27029 of 2005 (T) O.A.No.952 of 2000 N.Latha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Educational Officer, Tindivanam. 2.The Head Master, Government High School, Koonimedu, Tindivanam Taluk. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.952 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the proceedings dated 24.01.2000, made in Na.Ka.11802/Aa1/98; and quash the same and to pass such further orders. For Petitioner :Mr.A.Thirumoorthy For Respondents :Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order of termination passed by the 1st respondent, in his proceedings Na.Ka.11802/Aa1/98, dated 24.01.2000, whereby, the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that she has produced false certificate.
2. The petitioner joined as Office Assistant in the Government High School, Avalurpettai in the year 1996 on compassionate ground, after the death of her husband. After some time, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Government High school, Koonimedu, Tindivanam Taluk. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent school has taken steps to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Office Assistant. In the said process, the 2nd respondent forwarded all the petitioner’s certificates to the 1st respondent for his consideration. On receipt of the above said certificates from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has found certain discrepancies in the school certificates produced by the petitioner. In view of the strong doubt emanated from the certificates produced by the petitioner, she was issued with a show cause notice dated 31.05.99, calling upon the petitioner to offer her explanation as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from services. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner also submitted her explanation dated 10.08.99 denying all the charges made against her. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, disagreeing with the explanation offered by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. The said order is put in issue in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent, while passing the impugned order, has not followed the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunities to explain her case, before passing the order dismissing the petitioner from service. In his further submission, it was contended that the respondent failed to see the relevant records available in Arakandanallur Government School, who have issued the certificates for the said period. Without doing so, finding the petitioner guilty of producing the false certificate is not sustainable. Further, it was contended that the 1st respondent has committed an error in observing that the petitioner’s father’s name as G.Nagarajan and not Kalivaradan, whereas the petitioner’s father’s name is Kalivaradan and her husband’s name is G.Nagarajan. Therefore, the 1st respondent has committed an error in passing the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when the 2nd respondent took steps to regularise the services of the petitioner, the certificates produced by the petitioner, at the time of her appointment as Office Assistant, were forwarded to the 1st respondent, for its approval. When the 1st respondent came to know that the certificates produced by the petitioner was not genuine and appears to be a fake one, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation. When the petitioner was given a chance to submit her explanation as well as to explain that the certificates produced by her was a genuine one, the petitioner also produced transfer certificate, which is said to have been issued by the Head Master, Government High School, Arakandanallur, but the same was also found to be false. Again, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in R.C.No.11802/A1/1998, dated 30.11.99, asking her to show further cause as to why she should not be terminated from service for producing false certificate. The records pertaining to the certificates issued by the school, in which she has studied, were also perused by the Head Master of the School, who observed that the transfer certificate is not a genuine one and thereafter, the District Educational Officer, Tindivanam, personally verified the same and only after proper and thorough verification of the relevant records produced by the petitioner with the help of the Head Master of the school, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner produced false certificate. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition cannot be accepted and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated on the ground of producing false certificate, at the time of joining the service of the 2nd respondent as Office Assistant. The petitioner, after receiving the show cause notice, produced one another certificate, which also came to be a fake one. Therefore, the Head Master of the High School, after thorough verification of the records available in the said school, in which the petitioner was said to have studied during the relevant period, came to report to the 1st respondent that the certificates produced by the petitioner was not a genuine one. The allegation being grave in nature, which was also found proved, based on which the impugned termination order was passed on the ground of producing fake certificate, cannot be intervened by this Court sitting under Article 226.
7. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this court that when the petitioner approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal also granted interim order of stay against the order of dismissal from service passed by the 1st respondent and by virtue of the interim order, she has worked for 10 years and 4 years prior to the passing of the interim order. Thus, the petitioner has totally served for about 14 years and it was pleaded that the petitioner hails from poor family background and owing to object poverty recovery of salary may not be made against her. In view of her poor family background, no recovery order may be made by the respondents. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has worked during the above said period, this Court directs that the authorities shall not recover any amount from the petitioner, as she had already worked to earn the salary.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction. No Costs.
rkm
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Tindivanam.
2.The Head Master,
Government High School,
Koonimedu,
Tindivanam Taluk