P SEKAR Vs. REGISTRAR TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" in O.A.No.1608 of 2003 dated 20.11.2003. Such Original Application was filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of termination from service, which was ultimately dismissed without granting any relief.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the Original Application and the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioner was working as Flock Man in the Animal Husbandry Department since 1983. At that time, the petitioner had not passed SSLC examination. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in SSLC examination as a private candidate during 1988 and furnished the mark sheet, wherein it was indicated that he had passed all subjects in SSLC examination. THEreafter, on the basis of such certificate, he applied for the post of Veterinary Livestock Inspector and was selected on 20.4.2000 and was sent for training and joined the post in April, 2001. THE Department sent the certificate for verification to the Director of Government Examination. THEy informed the Department that the mark sheet sent to them does not tally with the marks entered in the Original Mark Register. Upon the receipt of such information, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated. In such departmental enquiry, the petitioner was examined and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.2.2003 holding that the charge against the petitioner had been proved. Subsequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THEREFORE, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry report and the order of punishment are based on no evidence is not acceptable. In a departmental enquiry, technical rules of the Evidence Act are not strictly applicable. On behalf of the Department, the letter of the Director of Government Examinations dated 7.11.2001 had been produced indicating that the marks reflected in the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner did not tally with the marks available from the original records. The petitioner himself was examined during the departmental enquiry and the questions put and the answers given are available on record. Except baldly stating that the petitioner has got mark sheet from the school, there is no other acceptable material or detail has been given. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he had actually passed and the report given by the Director of the Government Examinations is incorrect. Since the petitioner had submitted a mark sheet, which was found to be incorrect, it was within the subject knowledge of the petitioner as to the source of obtaining such mark sheet and it was for him to explain such aspect by adducing proper evidence. To that extent, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the charge has been found against him.