P KALIMUTHU Vs. PERSONNEL ASSISTANT TO COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father, while serving as Office Assistant in Ramanathapuram District Revenue Unit, died on 15.04.75. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Night Watchman in Class IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service by relaxing Rule 5(1) of Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and he joined duty on 09.12.84. At the time of his appointment, he was only as 8th standard discontinued candidate. Subsequently, he was also promoted as Office Assistant and joined the said post on 01.04.85. As per Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, a person who is appointed in any of the of the post in Class IV, should have completed five years of service in that post and should have passed 8th standard for getting promotion to the post of Office Assistant. As the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant within a short span of four months from the date of his appointment as Night Watchman, his service records were perused and it was found that there were some corrections in the entries relating to his educational qualification and age as well. In respect of 8th standard discontinued, there was correction to the effect showing that he has passed 8th standard and in respect of his date of birth also, it was found that his date of birth has been altered unofficially as 12.04.58 instead of 12.04.55, which was given at the time of his appointment as Night Watchman. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 11.05.99 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for having made unauthenticated corrections regarding his qualification and date of birth. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating the corrections in his service register has been made behind his back and he was no way connected with that incident. But, the disciplinary authority rejected his explanations, since his appointment was on compassionate ground as per G.O.Ms.No.1107, Revenue Department, dated 05.07.84, whereby his educational qualification was shown as just 8th standard discontinued and that he had completed 28 years of age at the time of his appointment. since, within a short span of four months, there was no possibility to pass 8th standard and as the petitioner also failed to produce any records showing that he has passed 8th standard examination, enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer, after perusing the service register and the connected records showing the entries regarding his previous temporary appointment made on 28.03.85 and on the same date he has applied for promotion stating that he has passed 8th standard, all of which goes to show that the petitioner has furnished incorrect information regarding his educational qualification for getting promotion, submitted his findings holding him guilty of all the charges. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, again sought for explanation. The petitioner submitted his further explanation making allegation against the enquiry officer, but they were all rejected as unacceptable and finally, the disciplinary authority, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty, passed an order of removal from service.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the alteration of his educational qualification as well as the date of birth. Further, he was serving only as Office Assistant, after his promotion from Night Watchman. Therefore, there was no access to the custody of the records and the respondent wrongly passed an order, that too, without proper enquiry. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made only compassionate ground, after the death of his father Late Periasamy, who died on 15.04.75. At the time of his appointment as Night Watchman, the petitioner had shown his educational qualification as 8th standard discontinued and his date of birth as 12.04.55. Immediately, after joining as Night Watchman, the petitioner also submitted his representation to promote him to the post of Office Assistant. On the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, he was promoted as Office Assistant. Thereafter, the service register of the petitioner was perused. While doing so, it was found that there were some corrections in the records, wherein the petitioner's qualification was found altered from 8th standard discontinued into 8th standard passed and also alteration in the date of birth as 12.04.58 instead of 12.04.55. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the enquiry, the petitioner was not able to explain as to why he had made a representation to promote him to the post of Office Assistant from the post of Night Watchman, when he has not passed 8th standard examination, if he had not altered the educational qualification in the service register in collusion with other persons in the office. Therefore, the enquiry officer found him guilty and finally, the disciplinary authority, after giving reasonable opportunities, found him not fit to continue as a staff in the office, as a result, he was removed from service. When the charges framed against the petitioner were found proved, the disciplinary authority ended in removal of the petitioner from service and therefore, this Court shall not interfere with the impugned punishment imposed by the respondent. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.