BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05/07/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
W.P.(MD).No.10097 of 2005
S.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur ... Respondent
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the respondent and quash the order of the respondent in
Na.Ka.No.11453/2005/A1, dated 21.10.2005 terminating the petitioner from service
and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back
wages and other monetary benefits.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Sekar
^For Respondent ... Mr.D.Muruganandam
Addl. Government Advocate
:ORDER
The petitioner seeks the writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order, dated 21.10.2005, vide which the services of the petitioner has been
ordered to be terminated.
2.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the posts
of part time Village Officers were abolished by Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1981, with
effect from 14.11.1980.
3.The erstwhile Village Officers challenged the validity of the said Act,
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. During the hearing of the petition,
a memo was filed by the State Government stating, that all the Ex-Village
Officers, who possess minimum general educational qualification, as on
20.02.1982 will be given an appointment through the Screening Committee against
the newly created post of Village Administrative Officer.
4.In pursuant to the memo filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
a District Level Screening Committee, and the State Level Screening Committees
were constituted for selecting eligible Ex-Village Officer, who lost service on
14.11.1980 due to abolition of the post of Village Officer.
5.The State Government also issued a Government Order, giving powers to
the Collectors of all the Districts to appoint Ex-Village Officers temporarily
as Village Administrative Officers, on being sponsored through the Employment
Exchange under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules, subject to certain
conditions. Concurrence was also obtained from the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, for appointment of 1438 Ex-Village Officers, who have passed S.S.L.C
after 20.02.1982 till 1988-1989. The monetary benefit was given to the persons
on availability of those vacancies. Thereafter, the Ex-Village Officer, who
passed SSLC after 1988-1989 were also directed to be given appointment.
6.It is seen, that some of the temporary Village Officers, who worked as
temporary basis prior to 14.11.1980 approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, for appointment as Village Administrative Officers. The learned
Tribunal accepted their plea and issued certain directions, with which we are
not concerned for the present.
7.The petitioner being the part-time Ex-Village Officer, was selected for
the post of Village Administrative Officer. In view of the qualification of
SSLC, the temporary appointment of the petitioner made on July 1981.
8.The temporary appointment was placed before the screening committee for
regularization of the services of the petitioner as Village Administrative
Officer. On verification, it was found that SSLC certificate submitted by the
petitioner was a forged document.
9.Consequently, his service was ordered to be terminated, by way of
impugned order.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order,
on the ground, that a reading of order would show that it is stigmatic in
nature. Though, the order is simpliciter order of termination, but in fact, the
motive of passing this order is the alleged misconduct of having filed for
forged SSLC certificate.
11.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore is
that without issuing notice and holding an enquiry it is not permissible to
terminate the services of the petitioner.
12.On consideration, I find no force in the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
13.It is well settled law, that whenever the appointment has taken by
fraud, by production of forged document, the services are liable to be dismissed
forthwith. In such situation, it is not open to the petitioner to claim the
compliance of principles of natural justice, unless and until, the petitioner is
able to show the prima facie that the allegations of forgery are not correct, or
he has a prima facie plausible defence. In absence the settled law that fraud
vitiates everything comes into play.
14.In the case in hand, except the pleading SSLC certificate is a genuine,
no material has been placed on record. The action taken by the respondents in
terminating the services of the petitioner, is in consonance with the settled
law, that person guilty of fraud is not entitled to continue the service.
Further more, person guilty of forgery is not entitled to any equitable relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15.Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.
er
To,
01.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur.
02.The Additional Government Pleader,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.