Mrs.R.Sampath... v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner, Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chennai-6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:20.09.2011CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.7959 OF 2009Mrs.R.Sampath...PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner, Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chennai-6.2.The Assistant Director, Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chidambaram....RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records of the second respondent made in proceedingsCh.Na.Ka.N.210/A/08 dated 22.07.2009 and quash the same and directthe respondent to absorb the petitioner in the services of therespondents as an employee.For Petitioner: Mr.V.ThillaisamyFor Respondents:Mr.V.SubbiahSpecial Government PleaderO R D E RThe petitioner has come forward to challenge the orderpassed by the second respondent viz., Assistant Director ofVeterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chidambaramdated 22.07.2008. 2. By the aforesaid order, the second respondent informedthe petitioner that her appointment as livestock Assistant attached https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Veterinary Clinic, Chidambaram was cancelled by the Regionaloffice and consequently she was relieved from service with effectfrom 22.07.2008.3. The writ petition was admitted on 28.4.2009. Pendingthe writ petition, the applciation for interim stay, after noticeto the respondent, was dismsised by this Court on 2.11.2010.4. On notice from this Court, the first respondentCommsisioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennaihas filed a counter affidavit dated 8.11.2010. Since the avermentsmade in the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, this Courtdirected the learned Special Government Pleader to procure theoriginal file for perusal by this Court.5. Heard both sides.6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner'shusband was working as Helper to the Doctor in the secondrespondent department and she got married with the said Ravi andhowever, unfortunately, her husband late Ravi died in harness in31.10.1999, even at the prime age of 42 years. Thereafter, thepetitioner being the only legal heir, has made an application forgrant of employment assistance on compassionate ground. Since noaction was initiated, the petitioner submitted a petition beforethe Chief Minister's Cell and the same was directed to the firstrespondent for proper consideration. Based on the petition, anorder of appointment was issued by the first respondent on15.01.2008 appointing her as a helper in the second respondentorganization. 7. The appointment order has clearly revealed that hermarital status being unmarried and she has also produced hereducational certificate. It transpires that the certificate showingthe educational qualification of the petitioner was sent forverification with the Education Department and by an order dated22.07.2008, she was relieved from service. In the said order ofrelief, a reference was made to the letter received from the Headoffice dated 16.07.2008 as well as from the Regional Office dated22.07.2008. The letter dated 22.07.2008 sent by the Regional Officeaddressed to the District Collector, Cuddalore which is alsoenclosed in Page 16 of the Typed set would show that theeducational certificates produced by her was not true certificatesand on verification, the certificates were found out to be falseand therefore her appointment was cancelled,.8. Challenging the reasoning given by the firstrespondent, the petitioner contended that the petitioner was notgiven opportunity and she was not served with a charge memo or show https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cause notice and no opportunity was given to her before thetermination. Resisting the claim made by the petitioner, in thecounter affidavit it was contended that the Regional Joint Directorof Animl Husbandry,Cuddalore referred the genuineess of thepettioner's educational certificates to the District PrimaryEducational officer, Cuddalore by letter dated 12.01.2008. 9. The District Primary Elementary Educationalofficer,Cuddalore stated that there was no evidence found to proveas to whether she has studied in the school and also stated thatthe educational certificate produced by her was not genuine one andon the basis of the said report, her initial order of appointmentdated 15.01.2008 was cancelled. In paragraph 3, the firstrespondent- Commissioner of Veterinary Services,Chennai has alsostated as follows:" It is submitted that the petitioner appealed tothe Commissioner of Veterinary Services, Chennai statingthat she actually studied at Municipal Middle School,Cuddalore upto 8th Standard. The discrepancy was due toinitial of her name as the petitioner registered herfather's name in the records of the school. The RegionalJoint Director of Animal Husbandry, Cuddalore againreferred the educational certificate to the DistrictPrimary Educational Officer, Cuddalore in Ro.No.4510/B1/08dated 19.01.2009, requesting to verify the genuineness ofthe certificate. The District Primary Educational officernow found the same certificate as genuine videLt.Roc.No.447/A5/08 dated 20.3.2009. As the two statementof the District Primary Officer, Cuddalore regarding thegenuineness of the educational certificate wascontradictory, the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry andVeterinary services, referred the matter to the ChiefEducational Officer Cuddalore in Roc.No.69815/N1/06 dated20.5.2009 and the reply for the same is awaited" 10. If this contention of the first respondent is accepted,it is not known why the respondents have hurriedly cancelled theappointment of the petitioner. It is in the light of the saidstatement, this Court directed the respondent to produce theoriginal file. When initial reference was made to the DistrictPrimary Educational Officer, Cuddalore, the matter was referred fordetermination by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. Thesaid officer one R.Balasundaram in his first communication dated28.4.2008 stated that he went to the School which is reflected inthe educational certificate given by the petitioner and oninspection he found that there was no evidence even in the schooland therefore, the educational certificate produced by her was nottruthful. The very same officer subsequently sent a further report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 12.03.2009 stating that when he visited the Middle School atPudupalayam and perused the school records. It was found that theadmission register was in a very bad condition. Hence, thetruthfulness of school stated in the certificate was notascertained, but in the attendance register, her name was found andeven in the mark register, her name was found. Hence the schoolmentioned in the certificate was truthful. If the inspectingofficers gives their preliminary report, it is all the morenecessary that the respondents should have conducted a properenquiry and then after ascertaining the truthfulness of the saidcertificate, they should have taken further action. Even thecounter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that theywere awaiting for further opinion from the Chief EducationalOfficer, Cuddalore and the same is awaited. Therefore , the aboveaction taken by the respondents in hurriedly dispensing with theservices of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 11.It is no doubt true that in case of any compassionateappointment, the candidates who aspire for the said post must havea minimum qualification prescribed for the said post. In case, anyfalse certificate is produced, their appointment is liable to becancelled. In the present case, there is no clarity in thematerials, upon which, the said termination order came to beissued. When the Assistant Educational Officer made an inspectionand sent two reports within a span of one month and in the secondreport, the truthfulness of the petitioner's studing in the schoolhas been set out, then on what basis, the respondents have chosento terminate the service of the petitioner, is not answered. Thatis why the first respondent himself has stated that a report wascalled for from the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore. 12. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for therespondent fairly admits that such a report is yet to be received.In such circumstance, it is not open to the first respondent toterminate the services of the petitioner.13. The Supreme Court vide its Judgment in RajasthanState Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Bal Mukund Biarwa(2) reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299held that if the employee is charged with grave acts of misconduct,then he is entitled to a fair hearing according to the principlesof natural justice and the rules laid down in the statutory rulesshould be followed. The Supreme Court in Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169 has held thatthe Government servant cannot be dismissed without following therules prescribed for removal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. In the present case, in the absence of any clearmaterial available in the file, the respondent's action interminating the services of the petitioner, though he has workedonly for a period of one year, is clearly illegal and hence theimpugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed torestore the petitioner into service with consequential benefits andif there are any materials which are subsequently found against thepetitioner, then the respondents are bound to conduct appropriateenquiry in accordance with the relevant service rules. The writpetition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar.VJYTo1.The Commissioner, Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chennai-6.2.The Assistant Director, Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chidambaram.1 cc to mr.V. Thillaisamy, Advocate, Sr. 590791 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 58562W.P.No.7959 OF 2009IS (CO)kk 7/10