It is submitted by the petitioner that he was appointed as a Horse Keeper (SYCE), on 29.10.1991, as per the order No.11847/Ne.7/91, based on his performance in the interview held on 24.10.1991, and he had joined duty, on 7.11.1991, after submitting his school certificates. In the school certificates submitted by the petitioner, it was shown that the petitioner had passed VIIIth standard. As per the existing Government Rules, the school certificates were sent for verification, on 28.6.1993. On such verification, on 20.9.1993, the District Educational Officer had found the certificate to be a bogus certificate. Thereafter, an explanation was called for from the petitioner regarding the bogus nature of the certificate submitted by him. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 24.2.1994, admitting the error committed by his father, who had already died. The petitioner had produced his original certificate issued by the Corporation Boys Middle School, V.R. Pillai Street, Triplicane, Madras. Therefore, a charge had been framed against the petitioner, on 5.4.1994, leading to his termination from service, on 31.1.1996.
2. The petitioner has further submitted that for the post of Horse Keeper (SYCE), no minimum qualification was necessary. It was sufficient if the petitioner knew how to read and write in Tamil. The father of the petitioner had produced a bogus certificate showing that the petitioner had passed VIIIth Standard. Further, there is no possibility of the petitioner being promoted, based on the bogus school certificate. Therefore, there was no wrongful intention on the part of the petitioner, while he had joined in service as a Horse Keeper (SYCE), on 29.10.1991.
3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed on a temporary basis, under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, by the proceedings of the office of the respondent, namely, King Institute of Preventive Medicine, in Roc.No.11847/E7/91, dated 29.10.1991. The petitioner had reported for duty, on 7.11.1991. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner had produced a school transfer certificate No.678, Admission No.2623, issued by the Corporation High School, Lloyds Road, Madras. As per the transfer certificate, he was studying VIIIth Standard at the time of leaving the school. The certificate was referred to the District Educational Officer, Madras (South), Madras, to verity its genuineness, as per the existing orders. The Headmaster of the School had stated that the said transfer certificate had not been issued by his school. Therefore, the District Educational Officer, (South), Madras, had stated in his letter L.Dis.No.6270/A7/93, dated 20.9.1993, that the transfer certificate is a bogus one.
4. The respondents had further submitted that the qualification prescribed for the post is the ability of a candidate to read and write in Tamil, as per G.O.Ms.No.292, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 31.12.1982, as stated in the Director of Medical Education's letter Roc.No.22607/E4/3, dated 30.4.1990. The possible reason for the petitioner to produce a bogus certificate regarding his educational qualification could be that the petitioner would have a chance of being posted as an Office Assistant after he had gained experience for a year. The Government of Tamil Nadu in its letter No.1216/F2/82/2, dated 18.10.1983, had given instructions for taking necessary action under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and to initiate criminal action against the persons producing bogus school certificates while seeking employment. Therefore, necessary action was taken against the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in accordance with the proceedings, in Roc.No.10772/E7/93, dated 28.1.1994, issued by the respondent Department. In the explanation, dated 24.2.1994, submitted by the petitioner, he had stated that his father had submitted a bogus certificate thinking that he could seek appointment for his son only on the production of a certificate as though he had passed VIIIth standard. Thereafter, charges had been framed against the petitioner, in Roc.No.10772/E4/93, dated 5.4.1994, which are as follows: "(1) The school certificate produced by him was bogus.
(2) He produced the bogus school certificate against Government Rules with the intention to cheat the Government and sought the appointment."
5. In the explanation, dated 5.5.1994, the petitioner had tendered his apology and had explained that he had no intention to cheat the Government. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer in her report, dated 1.7.1994, had stated that both the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. Therefore, the petitioner was removed from service, in D.Dis.No.10772/E2(1)/93, dated 31.1.1996, issued by the Director, King Institute of Preventive Medicine, Guindy, Madras. In such circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioner does not have any merit and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cheat the Government by producing the bogus certificate claiming that the petitioner had passed VIIIth standard, even though the petitioner had only IVth standard qualification. Further, the bogus certificate had been produced by the father of the petitioner and he had already died. The minimum required qualification for being appointed as a Horse Keeper (SYCE) is the possession of knowledge to read and write in Tamil. Since no promotion is possible, the petitioner cannot be said to have cheated the Government at the time of his appointment.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also placed before this Court an order of the First Bench of this Court, dated 19.12.2002, made in a batch of Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4941 of 2002, etc., (batch) wherein the writ petitions had been disposed of taking into consideration the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cancelling the punishment of removal/dismissal from service imposed on the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for production of bogus certificates with regard to their qualification and age. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass a similar order cancelling the order of punishment issued against the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the order of the respondent, terminating the service of the petitioner, is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had submitted that the order of termination from service passed against the petitioner is valid, as it is in accordance with law. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate in nature. The petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case and an enquiry had been conducted and it was found that the petitioner had submitted a bogus certificate as though he had passed VIIIth standard while he had passed only IVth standard in the Corporation Boys Middle School, V.R. Pillai Street, Triplicane. Though the petitioner had been appointed purely on a temporary basis, under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, he was terminated from service based on the disciplinary action initiated against him and as a result of the enquiry conducted with regard to the bogus certificate produced by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit or substance in the claims made by the petitioner.
10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the respondent terminating the service of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or invalid in the eye of law.
11. The petitioner, having produced a bogus certificate with regard to his educational qualification, cannot expect this Court to apply the principle of equity in his favour. Having accepted the fact that the certificate produced on his behalf is a bogus certificate, he cannot plead total ignorance regarding the same stating that it was his father who had produced the certificate to the respondent at the time of the petitioner's appointment. Once it was accepted that it was a bogus certificate, no further proof is required to show that the petitioner had the wrong intention of cheating the Government at the time of his appointment in service. The claim of the petitioner that, since the minimum qualification required for being appointed as a Horse Keeper (SYCE) is only the knowledge of reading and writing in Tamil, there cannot be a wrongful intention on the part of the petitioner in the submission of a certificate showing that he had passed VIIIth standard, especially, when there is no possibility of further promotions for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Once it is shown that the certificate produced by the petitioner was a bogus one the wrongful intention could be presumed and the onus of proof would shift on the petitioner to show that no such intention existed. Even if there was no possibility of further promotions, the petitioner would not be exonerated on that score alone. If such acts are encouraged, it would lead to serious consequences threatening the scheme of proper and efficient administration. In fact, such appointments which could be termed as irregular, would have the effect of keeping out better and more qualified persons, who are waiting to be employed. In such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner had miserably failed in his attempt to justify his appointment as a Horse Keeper (SYCE), on 29.10.1991, in the respondent Institute, as it was based on a bogus certificate relating to his educational qualification.
12. Therefore, The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 31.1.1996, made in proceedings No.10772/Ne.2/1/93, terminating the service of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
