LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-394

M PALANISWAMY Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DINDIGUL

Decided On September 07, 2011
M Palaniswamy Appellant
V/S
Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Craft Instructor in Government High School. R. Vellode, on 9-7-1986, by the Chief Educational Officer, Anna District (Dindigul District), and at that time, he was in possession of the requisite qualification. On completion of ten years of service, the Headmaster of the school sent proposals for awarding Selection Grade to the petitioner. It was found that there were some corrections in the Foundation Course certificate produced by the petitioner, issued by the Annamalai University, and therefore, the matter was referred to Annamalai University. The Annamalai University, by letter dated 19-3-1999, replied that the marks for the English subject was tampered and the petitioner obtained only 36 marks and it was tampered as 70 marks.

(2.) Based on the same, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 3-6- 1999 under Rule 17(a). of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The crux of the allegation was that he tampered with the mark sheet in the Foundation Course certificate of 1st year, relating to English subject. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found that the charge was established. Subsequently, the petitioner was furnished with the findings of the enquiry officer and he also submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 4-4-2000, removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2813 of 2000 to quash the order dated 4-4-2000, removing him from service. While admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim stay on 24-4-2000. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner continued in service and he was also permitted, to retire from service, by order dated 31-3-2010, subject to the outcome of this case.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations. According to them, the charge against the petitioner was established in a properly conducted enquiry and based on the same he was removed from service.