K SUNDARAMOORTHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 to 3.

(2.) THE petitioner entered into service under respondents 1 to 3 as Peon on 25.11.1981. At the time of selection, he had given a certificate as if he had passed IX standard. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated as there was some suspicion departmental proceeding was initiated as there was some suspicion regarding the certificate. At that stage, the petitioner submitted as fresh certificate to the effect that he had passed X standard and offered explanation that since the original certificate for having passed X standard was not available at the time of his joining, as the same had been given such certificate showing that he passed IX standard. It was further stated that the petitioner had to derived any particular advantage by furnishing wrong certificate. THE department however thought it fit to dismiss the petitioner from service on the ground that he had given a false certificate. THE petitioner challenged such order of dismissal by filing O.A. No.19 of 2004, after unsuccessfully exhausting the departmental remedy by way of appeal and revision. THE Tribunal also confirmed the order of removal on the footing that the departmental enquiry had been conducted in accordance with law and on principles of natural justice and there was nothing to interfere with the order passed by the departmental authorities.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both parties at length and having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the punishment of removal from services, which has the effect of depriving the petitioner of his means of livelihood, is grossly disproportionate. We venture to so observe so, keeping in view the nature of the post and the status of the petitioner. We also feel that since the petitioner had not derived any particular advantage by producing the false certificate, the explanation of the petitioner that it was produced under a bone fide mistaken advice as the original certificate was not immediately available, is acceptable. In this circumstance, we feel that instead of removing the petitioner from service, some lesser punishment can be imposed.