Madras High Court
A.Jesudasan vs The Director Of Animal Husbandry on 24 September, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.14879 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.14879 of 2020 and
WMP.No.18467 of 2020
A.Jesudasan ...
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Animal Husbandry,
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 006
2.The Regional Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Villupuram ... Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
relating to order of the second respondent made in
Na.Ka.No.1665/A2/2016 dated 27.05.2019, as confirmed by the first
respondent in Na.Ka.No.39454-L1/2016 dated 17.02.2020 to quash the
same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
into service with all consequential and other attendant benefits arising
thereto.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14879 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 27.05.2019 thereby confirmed the order passed by the first respondent dated 17.02.2020 thereby removed the petitioner from service.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Flock Man on 01.04.1987 and thereafter, his service was regularised. In the meanwhile, he appeared for 10th standard examination during the year 1987 and the same was entered in the service register. Based on the said qualification, in order to promote the petitioner to the post of Veterinary Inspector Grade-II, he was sent for training on 07.11.2007. After training, he was promoted to the post of Veterinary Inspector Grade-II. In order to regularise the said post, the certificate produced by the petitioner was sent for verification. The petitioner himself produced the certificate from the Education Department as if the 10 th standard certificate produced is 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 genuine one. After verification, the said report was found as forged one and the 10th standard certificate produced by the petitioner was also found as forged one. Therefore, the petitioner was served with charge memo under rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Flock Man and he rendered service for the past thirty years. While being so, in the year 2016, he was served with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Enquiry was not conducted in proper form as contemplated therein. That apart, the petitioner produced the said certificate only for promotion and initially he did not produce any false certificate for appointment to the post of Flock Man. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sekar Vs. Registrar in WP.No.19063 of 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 2004 dated 16.02.2008, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that there is no finding nor any material to indicate that the petitioner had knowingly submitted a false mark sheet and such question would be ultimately decided in the pending criminal case and taking into consideration the social strata from which the petitioner comes, we feel in the interest of justice that punishment of termination of service is required to be modified and instead we direct that the petitioner shall be reverted to the post of Flock Man and shall not be construed for promotion to any other post. As a consequential of such order, it is further directed that the period during which the petitioner has not worked shall not be counted for any purpose. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to permit the petitioner to retire from service in the post of Flock Man with all monetary benefits.
4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.
5. On perusal of the counter filed by the respondents, revealed 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 that the petitioner was initially appointed as Flock Man on 01.04.1987 and his probation was also declared to be successfully completed. Thereafter, based on his educational qualification and his service, he was subjected for training for promotion to the post of Veterinary Inspector Grade-II. After training period, he was promoted to the post of Livestock Inspector Grade-II on 11.07.2009. Thereafter, for the purpose of regularising the service, the educational certificate produced by the petitioner was sent for verification. On the report from the authority concerned, it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was bogus one. Based on the said allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.12.2017. After due enquiry by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 27.05.2019. It is relevant to extract the charge memo issued to the petitioner hereunder:
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?1 ,j;Jiwapy; ke;ijf; fhg;ghsuhf gzpahw;wp te;j ,th;. Jiwg; gzpahsh;fspd; xJf;fPlo; y; fhy;eil Ma;thsh; gapw;rpf;F njh;t[ bra;ifapy;. 1987 khh;r;?y; 10?k; tFg;g[ njh;r;rpg; bgw;wjhf muR njh;tj[ J ; iw tH';fpaJ nghy; nghypahd kjpg;bgz; rhd;wpjH; mspjJ ; .
5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 gapw;rp bgw;W. $^iy 2009 Kjy; fhy;eil Ma;thsh; epiy?2 Mf muR tpjpKiwfSf;F Kuz;ghlhf 8 Mz;Lfshf Cjpa';fs; bgw;W tpjpKiwfis kPwp Vkhw;wp te;jjpd; K:yk; muRf;F ,Hg;g[ kw;Wk; muR gzpf;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;jJ/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?2 fhy;eil Ma;thsh; epiy?2 gjtpapy; ,tuJ gzpia tuz;Kiw gLj;Jk; bghUl;L. ,tuJ fy;tp rhd;wpd; cz;ikj;jd;ik mwpa ,th; Kd;g[ gzpg[hpe;j br';fy;gl;L fhy;eil guhkhpg;g[ cjtp ,af;Feh; mth;fsplk; ,tuJ fy;tp jFjpapd; cz;ikj;jd;ik mwpf;if nfl;ljpy;. m';F mt;tpjk; rhd;W VJk; ,y;iy vd;W bjhptpj;jjhy; jpU/m/n$Rjhrd;. fhy;eil Ma;thsh; epiy?2 mth;fsplkpUe;j fy;tp rhd;wpjH; bgw;W muR njh;t[ Jiwf;F mDg;gp nfl;ljpy;. cz;ikj;jd;ik tha;ej; it vd;W m';fpUe;J ,tnu mwpf;if bgw;W te;jjhf 31/03/2016 md;W nehpy; bfhz;L te;J bfhLj;jjhy;. Iag;ghL fhuzkhf kPz;Lk; cz;ikj;jd;ik rhd;W nfl;ljpy;. njh;tj[ J ; iw ,tiu tprhuizf;F miHj;jJk;. kUj;Jt tpLg;gpy; brd;W. 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 tprhuizf;F M$uhfhky; gzpapy; nrh;ej; jJk;. tpGg;g[uk; cjtp ,af;Feh; mYtyfj;jpy; njh;tj[ J ; iw ,thplk; tprhuiz elj;jp. khh;r;
1987?y; myp vd;gthpd; gjpt[ vz;zpy;. ,th; nghypahf 10?k; tFg;g[ njh;r;rp bgw;wjhf fy;tp rhd;W mspj;Js;shh; vd;Wk; ,tuJ fy;tp rhd;W cz;ikj;jd;ik tha;ej; it vd;W njh;tj[ J ; iw mwpf;if VJk;
jutpy;iy vd;Wk;. cz;ikj;jd;ik tha;ej; it vd;W muR njh;tj[ J ; iw rhd;W mspjj; J nghy;. ,tnu bgha;ahd mwpf;if jahhpj;Js;shh; vd;Wk;. ,th; kPJ chpa eltof;if vLj;J jfty; jUkhW nfl;Ls;sjhy;. ,th; xU nkhroia kiwf;f kw;bwhU nkhroia bjhlh;r;rpahf bra;J. muir Kw;wpYkhf Vkhw;wp te;jjpd; K:yk; ,th; jdJ flikapypUe;J jtwpaJ/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?3 ,tuJ ,j;jifa fLikahd Fw;w';fSf;F ,tiu Vd; gzp ePff; k; bra;af;TlhJ vd;W. ,j;Jiwj; jiyth; ,af;Feh; mth;fs; ,thplk; tpsf;fk; nfl;ljw;F fhy';fle;J nfl;ljhy; njh;tj[ J ; iw nghypahdJ vd;W bjhptpj;Js;sJ vd;Wk; mtuJ fy;tp jFjp rhd;W 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 cz;ikj;jd;ikahdJ vd;W Jiw jiyth;fn; f gjpy; mspj;J jg;gpff; Kay;tJ muR ed;dlj;ij tpjpfs; 1973. tpjp 20?f;F Kuz;ghlhf ele;J bfhs;tJ/
6. The first charge was that the petitioner produced bogus 10 th standard certificate and based on which he had undergone training and obtained promotion to the post of Veterinary Inspector Grade-II from 11.07.2009. The second charge was that for verification of 10 th standard certificate produced by the petitioner, communication was sent to the Education Department. Once again, the petitioner produced report as if it was given by the Joint Director concerned and the said 10 th standard certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine one. Suspecting the said certificate, once again they called for report from the Director of Examination and received report and found that the report submitted by the petitioner is also fabricated one. Therefore, the petitioner not only produced 10th standard certificate and also produced report as given by the Joint Director of Examination Department as if 10 th standard certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine one. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly issued charge memo and enquiry was conducted. In 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 the above judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that there is no finding nor any material to indicate that the petitioner had knowingly submitted a false marksheet. Whereas in the case on hand, there is material to show that the petitioner himself produced fabricated 10 th standard certificate and also fabricated report as if the 10 th standard certificate produced by the petitioner is genuine one. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
7. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that enquiry was not conducted in proper manner, that too for the charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 since enquiry officer conducted enquiry in the question answer pattern. On perusal of the enquiry report revealed that enquiry was conducted in question answer pattern and the petitioner categorically admitted that he was directed to receive opinion from the Directorate of Examination. Thereafter, he approached one, Ravi and produced report as if 10 th standard certificate produced by him is genuine 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 one. On verification, it was found that the signature found in the report is forge one and on receipt of the original report, it was found that the 10th standard certificate produced by the petitioner is forged one. Therefore, it does not require further examination and as such, enquiry officer rightly submitted his report and thereafter, the petitioner was issued second show cause notice and passed final order.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
24.09.2024 Neutral citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 To
1.The Director of Animal Husbandry, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Saidapet, Chennai 600 006
2.The Regional Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Villupuram 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok W.P.No.14879 of 2020 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14879 of 2020 24.09.2024 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis