B GNANAVEL Vs. PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT WOMENS ARTS COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.2176 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order, dated 25.9.2000 passed by the respondent removing him from service. By the impugned order, the petitioner was removed from service pursuant to a charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Pending the Original Application, the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. Pursuant to the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.3581 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on account of the death of his father Late Balakrishnan, who was working as a Marker. THE said Balakrishnan passed away on 12.8.1994. Subsequent to his appointment, on 06.4.1998, the petitioner was brought under the time scale of pay with effect from 04.12.1997 and his salary was fixed at the scale of pay of Rs.750-945. THE post of Marker was created by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.602, Higher Education Department, dated 04.12.1997. At that time, it is claimed that the petitioner gave a school certificate stating that he had completed VII Standard. THErefore, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the Record Sheet given by him was forged and the petitioner had only completed V Standard, whereas he has given the certificate as if he had undergone studies upto VII Standard.

(3.) MR.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the enquiry allegedly conducted by the respondent does not satisfy the requirement under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Once a charge memo is issued and the petitioner has replied, then proper enquiry should have been conducted and the petitioner is not aware of the nature of evidence recorded including the provisional decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel also produced the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Kamal Nayan Mishra -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169. In more or less similar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that even in cases where a Government Servant gives a wrong information in his attestation form and vouchsafed the information provided by him under the form is correct and subsequently it was found to be a false information, even then, no termination can be made without notice. Even if the attestation form contains a clause that no further notice will be issued, that by itself will not take away the guarantee given under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In paragraphs 21 to 24 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-