P C APPUKUTTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P12 order of the 4th respondent by which, he has been removed from service. The petitioner was appointed as a Mazdoor/Electricity Worker under the 2nd respondent pursuant to an advise of the 3rd respondent dated 24.6.2003. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of appointment dated 13.8.2003 was issued to the petitioner. On the basis of Ext.P3, the petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent. However, later on, certain complaints were raised against the appointment of the petitioner. Thereupon, as per Ext.P4 order dated 4.2.2004 the petitioner was suspended from service and disciplinary action was also initiated against him. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had suppressed from the 3rd respondent the fact that he has passed his SSLC examination, with the object of securing a job as Electricity Worker.

(2.) It was as per Ext.P1 notification that the 3rd respondent had invited applications for appointment to the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor). The qualification prescribed was that a candidate should have passed his fourth standard but should not have passed SSLC. Certain other physical requirements have also been insisted on. Though the petitioner had passed the SSLC examination, he submitted an application stating that he had not passed the SSLC examination. On the basis of the said application the petitioner was considered for appointment and advised as per Ext.P2. It was pursuant to the detection of the above discrepancy that the petitioner was suspended as per Ext.P4. It is stated in Ext.P4 that a local enquiry that was conducted revealed that the petitioner had two SSLC books bearing Nos. 642002 and 181280 which in combination would show that he had passed his SSLC examination. Therefore, it is alleged in Ext.P4 that he had suppressed facts fraudulently with the object of securing an appointment in the service of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Subsequently, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. A charge sheet as well as a memo of charges evidenced by Ext.P6 were also served on the petitioner. He submitted his explanation Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, it is true that he has passed SSLC, 'at a belated stage'. He had responded to the notification on the belief that the stipulation was flexible and subject to exceptions. He further says in Ext.P7 as follows: