P MAHENDRAN Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as a contract labourer in North Chennai Thermal Power Station from June 1991. Subsequently the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board took a decision to absorb on regular basis all contract labourers who have completed 480 working days as on 30.4.1999. Many such contract labourers were identified and issued individual entry pass. Pursuant to the decision of the Board, the petitioner was appointed as helper in Regular Work Establishment with effect from 27.10.1999. Before joining the duty, the petitioner was called upon to produce certificates in support of his qualification and date of birth. He produced a record sheet dated 9.9.1999, purportedly issued by the Headmaster, Government Welfare Middle School, Vilangadupakkam, Chennai and joined duty on 10.11.1999 in the Regular Works Establishment as Helper in Class IV services of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board of North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai. The Board corresponded with the Headmaster of the concerned school, who informed the Board that the petitioner had not studied in the said school. The petitioner was suspended from service and disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the ground that he has produced a false certificate. The petitioner submitted his explanation and requested the authorities to verify the certificate once again by reiterating that he had studied in the said school and had passed VIII Std. as indicated in the certificate. However, without making any further verification, a second show cause notice was issued by the Superintending Engineer. The petitioner filed his explanation by stating that the Headmaster has once again sent a letter stating that the earlier certificate was correct and on the basis of such subsequent correspondence from the Headmaster, the proceedings should be dropped. Notwithstanding the fact that the Headmaster in his letter dated 10.10.2000 addressed to the Superintending Engineer has indicated that the certificate was genuine, without making any further verification action was contemplated to be taken against the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6149 of 2000, which was dismissed with the observation that the respondents would consider all the necessary documents. However, the second respondent has passed an order of termination on 23.3.2001 which was served on the petitioner on 10.7.2001, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition it has been contended that without examining the Headmaster, who had earlier written that the petitioner was not a student of the school but had subsequently issued another letter confirming the genuineness of the said certificate, the petitioner should not have been dismissed from the service.

(3.) In course of hearing it was also submitted that even assuming that the certificate issued was incorrect, no minimum educational qualification is required for the employment, and therefore, the petitioner had not derived any advantage and he should not have been terminated from the service on that score.