(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a tacit of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of dismissal from smite passed by the second respondent herein in his Prot. No.15496/A2(2)/98 dated 05.05.1998 and the consequential order of the first respondent herein in his Na.Ka. No.86658/CMP2/2/98 dated 29.4.1999 and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.)

1. Prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of termination passed against the petitioner by the second respondent dated 05.05.1998 and the order passed by the first respondent in the Appeal dated 29.04.1999 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.12.1994, he was appointed as temporary Barber under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and he joined duty on 5.12.1994. At the time of selection, the petitioners relatives produced a School Certificate showing that the petitioner has passed eighth standard in a recognised school. According to the Petitioner, the qualification required as per Special Rule for appointment as Barber is a Pass in 5th standard and the petitioner has also passed 5th standard. The School Certificate produced at the time of joining the service viz., pass in 8th standard was sent to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore for verification and a report was also submitted by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore stating that the said Certificate was a bogus one.

3. Charge memo was framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for having produced a false certificate and obtained job. The petitioner submitted his explanation and opted for oral enquiry. In his explanation, the petitioner submitted that he has passed 5th standard and the relatives have misled him and produced the above 8th Standard Certificate at the time of interview. Oral enquiry was conducted and the charge was proved and based on the Enquiry Report, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 13.08.1996. The said order was challenged in O.A. No.5184 of 1996 before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 07.08.1997, set aside the said order on the ground of not giving reasonable opportunity before passing the order of dismissal namely furnishing the Enquiry Report and not getting the remarks of the petitioner. Thereafter, report was furnished to the petitioner and he has also submitted his remarks on 1.12.1997. The second respondent by order dated 5.5.1998 passed final orders, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the said order, by filing Appeal before the first respondent, which was also rejected on 29.4.1999. The said orders are challenged in this Writ Petition by contending that as per Rule 5(2) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Basic Service, every person appointed as a Barber should be able to read and write Tamil and the petitioner having passed 5th standard in a recognised school, he is eligible to be appointed as Barber and therefore, the dismissal order passed against the petitioner is to be set aside with consequential benefits.

4. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the petitioners 8th Standard Certificate having been found to be bogus, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner has filed a further affidavit dated 30.03.2009 and stated that the petitioner has passed 5th standard in a recognised school and he is fully qualified for being appointed as a Barber and if the impugned orders are set aside, the period in which he was kept out of employment may be taken into account for continuity of service for the purpose of future benefits in pay after his retirement, no backwages for the period from 05.05.1999 till the date of the decision of this Court will be claimed.

5. The petitioner has also impleaded the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore as a party/respondent. This Court on 16.04.2009 directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions from the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore and to find out as to whether the petitioners 5th Standard Certificate issued by the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chitteri Village, Arakonam Taluk is a genuine one or not. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore sent a communication to the learned Additional Government Pleader on 22.04.2009 stating that he went to the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chitteri Village, Arakonam Taluk and found that the petitioner studied in the said school from 19.7.1976 with Regn. No.1583 and he passed 5th standard on 01.05.1982 and the certificate produced by the petitioner stating that he has passed 5th standard is genuine.

6. In the light of the report of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore and having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner got the certificate issued by the Headmaster of Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chitteri Village, Arakonam, the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Barber in terms of Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules viz., Rule 5(2). Hence, the dismissal order passed against the petitioner, even though he is qualified to be appointed as a Barber cannot be sustained. The petitioner though produced a certificate claiming that he passed 8th standard was found wrong and by producing the same he has not pursuaded the authority to ignore the claim of other candidate. Similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.38962 of 2002. By order dated 07.03.2005, the Division Bench has held as follows:

"The question is whether production of such false document had in any way, persuaded the Appointing Authority to give appointment to the first respondent or whether the production of such bogus certificate had excluded the claim of any meritorious candidate. As found by the Tribunal, the qualification for the post in which the first respondent was appointed is that one must know to read and write Tamil. No other educational qualification is prhscribed. Therefore, probably, out of anxiety, the first respondent would have produced the said certificate, which is wholly uncalled for. The availability of such a certificate on file, assuming it had not been detected, would not give him any additional rights in the matter of promotion. Therefore, in the above noted circumstances, we do not find any illegality at all in the Tribunal setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal and remitting the case to the original authority to impose a lesser punishment, as he may deem fit. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed."

7. In W.P. No.29511 of 2002, etc., batch, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20.02.2006 has taken a similar view. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

"2....Three Original Applications along with other Original Applications have been filed by Salai Paniyalargal, who have been removed from service on the ground that at the time of initial applications and subsequent appointments, they have produced false Educational Certificates showing as if they have passed Class V. During the course of enquiry, it was found that, in fact all these applicants have got higher qualifications, even some of them have passed S.S.L.C. but, they have produced the Class V educational qualification with a view to get the employment, thinking that higher qualified person may not be selected. The Tribunal taking into account these factors, held that, even though they were guilty of producing the wrong certificates, instead of removal, the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect may be imposed.

3. These orders have not been challenged by the concerned individual employees. However, the State Government has filed the present Writ Petitions. The main contention of the State Government is to the effect that since delinquency had been found, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment.

4. Ordinarily, the Administrative Tribunal is not supposed to interfere with the order of punishment once delinquency is found, unless such order of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the nature of delinquency. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has referred to relevant aspects and has interfered with the order of punishment. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Tribunal."

8. Again in the decision in P. Sekar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Others, 2008 (5) MLJ 646 [LQ/MadHC/2008/849] , a Division Bench of this Court taken the same view. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board while appointing helpers on the basis of recommendations of Honble Justice Khalid Commission, certain helpers obtained orders of appointment by producing bogus certificates. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated and on the suggestions made by the Division Bench of this Court, the Board resolved to reinstate the helpers who were dismissed and ordered to reduce the pay for three. years which will operate for future increments. The said decision was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.16521 of 2002, etc., batch by order dated 05.02.2003.

9. Applying the said decisions to the facts of this case, the impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Barber with continuity of service without backwages within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that it is open to the second respondent to impose any other lesser punishment for the production of false certificate.

10. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.