ARUNACHALAM Vs. DEPNTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER SOUTHERN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was employed in the Loco Works, Perambur, in the Southern Railways. He was removed from service with effect from 307-1973 by order dated 28-7-1973 by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Works, Perambur. He preferred an appeal to the Superintendent, Mechanical Works (Personnel ). That authority dismissed the appeal on 29-8-1973. To quash the order of removal, he filed W. P. 502 of 1974 in this Court, which was dismissed by Ismail, J. , at the admission stage. this writ appeal has been filed, against the order of Ismail, J.

(2.) THE appellant entered the railway service as a trade apprentice on 20-2-1948. The rules required that an applicant for that post must have attained the age of 17 year and should not have attained the age of 19 years on 1-12-1947. The appellant, in his application dated 9-21948, gave his date of birth was 20-4-1929. On 20-2-1948 he was appointed, on the basis that his date of birth was 20-4-1929. If that was his date of birth, he was certainly eligible for the appointment. In support of the date of birth furnished by him, the appellant is alleged to have produced a transfer certificate purporting to have been issued by the Methodist Mission Secondary School, St. Thomas Mount, and that showed his date of birth as 20-4-1929. In his application, the appellant gave his father's name as Loganathan and in fact he styled himself as L. Arunachalam. On the basis of the above representation, he was appointed.

(3.) AFTER the appellant had put in 21 years of service, ill-feeling developed between him and one Sahadevan. Sahadevan claims that he and the appellant are sons of one Ekambaram but by different wives, Sahadevan being the son by the Second wife and the appellant being the son through the third wife. According to Sahadevan, the appellant never studied in any school in St. Thomas Mount. He gave a complaint to the Vigilance Department of the Railways, stating that the appellant had secured his job by false representation. The complaint was enquired into and according to the department, the transfer certificate which the appellant had produced was a bogus certificate. According to the department, the appellant did not study at all in the Methodist Mission Secondary School in St. Thomas Mount and such a certificate had not been issued at all by the authorities of that school. Further, according to the department, the real date of birth of the appellant was 10-5-1926. Further, the appellant's father was Ekambaram and not Loganathan. The case of the department is that if the appellant had given his real age and his father's name, he would not have been eligible at all for appointment in view of the age restrictions and that was why be produced a bogus transfer certificate giving his date of birth which would make him eligible and in order to cover up any possible investigation he also gave out his father's name wrongly as Loganathan instead of Ekambaram, Further particulars of the fraud played by the appellant are also alleged. The department accordingly framed the following charge against the appellant on 21-31970. That you secured appointment as Trade Apprentice on 20-2 1948 in Carriage Works P. W. P. by producing, 1. a bogus transfer certificate, 2. Showing your uncle's name as your father's name. You thus produced appointment on false antecedents. Enquiry was made by one Sri N. Aravamudhan. He held the charge to be proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings and removed the appellant from service.