S RAJAMANICKAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the third Respondent, the order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the second Respondent and the Government Letter dated 14.05.2007 issued by the first Respondent with a prayer to quash the same and give consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual background of the case on hand is that the Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Assistant on 01.04.1983. The next avenue of promotion is Junior Assistant. The qualification required for such post is S.S.L.C. The Petitioner has written S.S.L.C. Examination during 1976-1977. But he did not get through. Again, he wrote the examination in March 1995 in Jameendar Higher Secondary School, Kattuputhur. Except Tamil and English, he had passed all the subjects. In the month of October 1995, he appeared for supplementary examination from the same school. The mark sheet has been furnished to the Petitioner for supplementary examination on 21.12.1996 and the Petitioner passed the subjects. The Petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant on 27.04.1999.

(3.) Two years thereafter, the certificate of the Petitioner was sent for verification and adverse report was received from the Director of Government Examination to the effect that the number of the mark statement differs. As a result, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules as per the proceeding dated 20.03.2002 on the allegation of producing false mark statement to get his promotion. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.03.2002. A criminal prosecution was also launched against the Petitioner by registering a case in Crime No. 96 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code on the very same allegation of furnishing bogus and fabricated mark statement. Meanwhile in the disciplinary proceeding, an enquiry conducted and the Petitioner sought for copies of the documents and list of witness on 27.03.2002, but the same were not furnished to the Petitioner. Again enquiry was conducted on 17.02.2003. No witness was examined during such enquiry and no document was marked through its author enabling the Petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. The entire enquiry was over in ten minutes. The Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty as per the report dated 17.03.2003.