Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.No.26243 of 2014be submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per the order dated 21.04.2025. One last opportunity is granted to furnish the same. This case is adjourned to 09.07.2025, on which date it will be disposed of based on the available records.6. Since a copy of the communication has been enclosed, the same shall be filed along with the affidavit of the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.”3. Thereafter, the respondent has filed Additional Counter Affidavit which was filed today i.e., on 09.07.2025 in the Court and a communication dated 30.05.2025 of the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District bearing reference R.C.No.A3/4728/2000, addressed to the Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai wherein it has been stated as follows:-“4. The Petitioner's mode of appointment was verified with reference to service records of the individual relevant Government Orders issued regarding 10(a)(1) appointments, compassionate Ground appointment regularisation of their service etc., the records produced by him, and the records received from the other offices. On verification of the above records, the following factors are came out into light. i.A perusal of his Service Register Volume I at Page 5, a sentence “A candidate orders compassionate ground” is inserted above the original entries i.e., “appointed under rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's R.C.A3/162011/79, dated 15.02.1980” joined duty on the Forenoon of 21.02.1980.ii.A perusal of his Service Register Volume II at Page No.8 the entries regarding his service regularisation with effect from 21.08.1980 forenoon, that the 4/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014completion of his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982, with reference to the North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant (General)'s Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86, dated 30.06.1987 which was against the facts and the officer's signature who attested the above entries at page 8 entirely differs against the original signatures that found at page 9 volume II of his Service Register. His normal date of completion of probation should be on 20.08.1982 since services were regularised with effect from 21.08.1982 as per Service Register. But the Service Register entries were made that he has completed his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 where there was a shortfall of 5 months and 10 days i.e., before the completion of two years of service. Thus, he again managed to make fraudulent entries in official records.5. A fresh letter in Rc.A3/4728/2000 dated 04.02.2000 and 27.03.2000, were sent to the Collector of North Arcot District, Vellore stating that a perusal of the Service Register of the individual reveals that he has been appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground on temporary basis under 10(a)(i) rules by the Collector of erstwhile North Arcot District in his Rc.A3/160211/79, dated 15.02.1980 and joined duty on the F.N of 21.02.1980, that it has been noted in the Service Register that the services have been regularised with effect from 21.08.1980 and he has completed his period of probation on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of erstwhile North Arcot District in his Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86, dated 30.06.1987 and that the Collector of Vellore has been requested to send the details of the G.O as such the orders of the Government is necessary as per rules in this case.6. Then the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore in his letter No.Rc.A3/23817/2000, dated 14.03.2001 has informed that the verification of the records and registers maintained in the concerned seat of his office reveals that there has no entry in respect of his appointment in the register for whom 5/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014appointments were made on compassionate grounds. In addition to that there has no entry about the commencement and completion of his probation in the Probation Register for Junior Assistants.7. In continuation, the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore in his letter No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, dated 11.05.2005 has informed that the verification of the compassionate ground appointment register reveals that there are no entries for the receipt of the application from Thiru.G.Murugan requesting the appointment on compassionate grounds that proposals for all the appointments made on compassionate grounds were sent to Government and got regularisation orders without any omission and necessary entries to that effect were made in that register which contains such details with effect from 28.12.1977, and that the regularisation orders from the Government was not received in Vellore District. In addition, the Collector of Vellore, informed in his letter No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, dated 27.06.2005 that the name of the Petitioner, Thiru.G.Murugan has not been taken place in the list to whom services were regularised as 10(a)(i) candidates in the erstwhile North Arcot District as per G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department, dated 22.09.1994.8. The Collector of Cuddalore District has reported in his letter No.L.Dis (A4)/77840/2002, dated 17.02.2003 that action was not taken to give appointment on compassionate ground to the individual, while he was addressed from this office as his father worked as Driver in South Arcot District Revenue Establishment when he died on 01.08.1972.9. Based on the above particulars, the work has been initiated on how the individual joined in the Government Service. In mean time, sufficient time was given to the individual to prove his appointment by submitting valid documents. The individual had not submitted any documents. Finally the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai passed an order to terminate his services vide his proceedings No.A3/4728/2000, dated 14.10.2005.6/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201410. .....11. .....12. .....13. The Legal heir certificate dated 11.09.2024 was issued to the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan. In the legal heir certificate, the age of the deceased Petitioner's father Govindasamy has been mentioned as 96 years instead of 53 years. The above certificate was issued on 11.09.2024. Before approving the legal heir certificate, the issuing authority/the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk failed to see the age of both deceased persons such as Govindasamy and Kannammal mentioned in the applied certificate form which was forwarded by concerned Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar. The age of Govindasamy was to be mentioned as 53 (Date of Birth: 25.12.1919 and date of death: 01.08.1972). As per pension book of deceased Kannammal, the age of Kannammal has mentioned as 38 on 1972. But the legal heir certificate issuing Officials mentioned the age of Govindasamy and Kannammal as 96 and 85 respectively. The age of the deceased persons has been approximately wrongly added from date of birth to correspond to the date of issuance of the legal heir certificate.14. A perusal of the Service Register's extracts at page 1 and 2 of the deceased Govindasamy that he belongs to “Thuluva Velala” community and at the page of service roll it was mentioned as “Thozu Vellalar” which comes under B.C. Category. The persons belong to Thozhu/Thuluva Vellalar Community are called colloquially as Naicker in Village side language of North Arcot Districts of Tamil Nadu. In this manner, the deceased Govindasamy name has been registered in Revenue Land Records as Govindasamy Naicker.15. Necessary documents have been enclosed for your perusal. Hence I requested to submit the informations mentioned supra befere Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits and thus render justice.”7/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 20144. The Additional Counter Affidavit which was filed in the open Court today i.e., on 09.07.2025, the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District has more or less extracted the content of the aforesaid communication and therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. A specific query was as to why and how the salary was disbursed, even if there was a manipulation in the service register as there would be other contemporaneous documents in the Department, which would have been acted based on the appointment made as otherwise, the salary would not have been credited to the account of the deceased petitioner, since the date of his appointment on 15.02.1980 on “compassionate grounds” under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and after the petitioner joined duty on 21.02.1980. 6. It appears that the records have not been maintained by the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District after North Arcot District was bifurcated into 2 Districts as North Arcot Ambedkar District presently known as Vellore District and Tiruvannamalai District and papers were transmitted from one office to another. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I am 8/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014not making any further changes in the order that was made ready by me “for pronouncing orders” on 17.06.2025 as there are no other ground available to sustain the impugned order. 7. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying to quash the Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000 issued by the Respondent.8. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the Petitioner was issued with an Order of Termination dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 by the Respondent. Challenging the said Termination Order, the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35094 of 2005 before this Court. This Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010 allowed the said Writ Petition with the following observations:-“10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 14.10.2005 is quashed and the matter is once again remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent shall put the petitioner on notice with regard to the allegations levelled against him and give him reasonable opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice and expedite the proceedings and complete the same and pass orders not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.11. This Court has not touched upon the merits of the case projected either by the petitioner or by the respondent and 9/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014the respondent shall decided the issue on its own merits based on the materials available on record.”9. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 01.11.2010 of this Court, the Petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Though the Petitioner submitted his Defense Statement dated 19.08.2011 denying the charges framed against him in the Charge Memo, a domestic inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer had held in his findings vide Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2011 that the Petitioner is found guilty of all the offences framed in the Charge Memo.10. Thereafter, the Respondent vide Letter dated 27.09.2011, called upon the Petitioner to give a reply to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, in response to which, the Petitioner submitted his reply vide Letter dated 20.10.2011. However, without considering the Petitioner's reply, the Respondent vide Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000, dismissed the Petitioner from service. 11. Operative portion of the Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 10/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201421.07.2014 reads as under:- “Explanation for Charge No.1:The department side has not produced any document indicating that entry regarding my Caste was recorded in my Service Register on the basis of School Transfer Certificate produced by me. Either the concerned School Transfer Certificate copy should have been marked as evidence or the personnel who made such entry in the service register should have deposed as such before the enquiry officer holding the charge-1 as proved is not supported by evidence on record and purely a guess-work indulged in by the enquiry officer. There must be a motivation for any offence. My Service Register was opened between my date of joining viz., 21.02.1980 and 23.03.1981 (date of first entry in my Service Register at Page 1). During the years 1980 and 1981, there was no classification as “Most Backward Community” and no reservation was made on that basis in the matter of appointment and educational concessions. Such a status was recognized only during the years 1989-1991. In these circumstances, the 1st page entry in my Service Register indicating my caste as “Hindu-Vanniar” instead of “Hindu-Thuzhu-Vellalar” could easily be surmised as clerical error committed by the official who maintained Service Registers during that time.Explanation for Charge No.2:The enquiry officer's report holding Charge II as proved is also inappropriate. The original appointment order, order of regularization of service in Junior Assistant cadre, Probation declaration order are all communications issued by the District Collector. Service Register entries on the basis of orders received from the District Collector have been duly made by a competent officer of the rank of Tahsildar. Individual copies of such orders sent to me could not be traced out due to lapse of time. So also the SSLC Mark Sheet. Even while I was taking steps to get duplicate copied of schools, the District Collector was also taking simultaneous steps to get duplicate copies of my 11/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014school records from the educational institutions where I have studied and I came to know what was happening. Hence, I did not pursue further. In these circumstances, I am not at fault for the loss of my copies of the above said official communications and the school records. The enquiry officer has given a presumptive finding in respect of Charge II and the same is not supported by any evidence on records.Explanation for Charge No.3:Entries in Service Register are made only on the basis of official communications received from the District Collector by the officer who maintains the service register with regard to service matters. The individual employee has nothing to do with the entries that are made in his service register. Entries in service register are not made at the behest of individual employee, commencement of probation, completion of probation, are issued by the District Collector to the Officer under whose control that particular employee is serving and on the basis of such orders entries are made in the service registers. The enquiry officer himself is an officer of the rank of Tahsildar and he knows what is what in these matters. The individual employee could not influence the Officer to make any entry in his favour. Yet to observe that:The above-mentioned records have been created in favor of the individual. This could have been created out of the interest of the individual, but rather out of the interest of the authorities and the administration. Therefore, Charge III against the individual has also been proven.is nothing short of guess-work. On the other hand, the enquiry offier has put the integrity of the then Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai to shame by stating as above. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer's report holding charge III as proved is not supported by evidence on record and purely a guess-work indulged in by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer's report holding charge III as poved is also inappropriate. The original appointment order, order of regularization of service in Junior Assistant Cadre, 12/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014probation declartion order are all communications issued by the District Collector. Service Register entries on the basis of orders received from the District Collector have been duly made by a competent Officer of the rank of Tahsildar. Individual copies of such orders sent to me could not be trced out due to lapse of time. So also the SSLC Mark sheet. Even while I was taking steps to get duplicate copies of schools, the District Collector was also taking simulatneous steps to get duplicate copies of my school records from the educational institutions where I had studied and I came to know what was happening. Hence, I did not pursue further. In these circumstances, I am not fault for the loss of copies of the above said official communications and the school records. The enquiry officer has given a presumptive finding in respect of Charge III and the same is not supported by any evidence on record.3) The allegations made against the individual, the individual's explanation, the statement of the investigating officer, and the individual's explanation were carefully considered. The individual's employment record states that he belongs to the Vanniyar community. The individual did not deny this. However, the community certificate which was obtained later states that the individual is a Thuluva Vellalar. Therefore, it is proven that the individual was the reason for entering incorrect community information in the employment register. It is stated that the individual was appointed on compassionate grounds and an insertion has been made in the temporary appointment registers. There is no counter signature for this and it is mentioned in the individual’s service register that the individual’s services were regularized from 21.08.1980 and the probationary period was completed on 10.03.1982. However, it was considered that the individual’s services were not regularized and the individual was not eligible for Un-Earned leave on medical certificate and the individual’s request for Un-Eaarned leave on medical certificate from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 was not accepted and the individual was allowed Un-Earned leave during this 13/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014period. The individual did not object to this. Therefore, it is clear that the individual’s services were regularized; the individual’s probationary period was completed and till 1994, no reference was made in the proceedings No.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 of General Personal Assistant of former North Arcot District Collector and that these entries were made before that date. It is also clear that the above mentioned P.M.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 is not related to the services of the individual and is related to another subject and the name of the individual is not mentioned in the register of compassionate appointment. It is also clear that these entries are false. It is also clear that the probation period of Junior Revenue Assistant is 2 years, but, in the above mentioned entries, it is mentioned that the services of the individual were regularized from 21.08.1990 and the probation period was completed two years earlier on 10.03.1982. The individual has been repeatedly asked to produce the order appointing him on compassionate grounds, the order regularizing his services and completing his probationary period, but, he has not produced them till date. Therefore, these notes have been proven beyond doubt to be false. It is concluded that the individual has made arrangement to make such false entries and that these entries have been made for the benefit of the individual.4) As mentioned above, the explanation given by the individual for the allegations against him is not valid since the three allegations made against the individual have been proven beyond doubt. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the former Junior Assistant of the Welfare Office of the Special Tahsildar, Mr. Komurugan be dismissed from Service from 14.10.2005 (date from which the individual was terminated from service).5) As against these orders, an appeal may be filed before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, within 60 days from the date of receipt of these orders.”14/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201412. Aggrieved by the Impugned Proceedings dated 21.07.2014 issued by the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.13. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner died on 04.07.2024. 14. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan (wife, sons and daughter of the deceased Petitioner) have filed Petition in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024 before this Court seeking to substitute them as Petitioners in the place of deceased Petitioner G.Murugan in this Writ Petition.15. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan have filed an affidavit in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024 along with deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024 as well as their Legal Heirship Certificate dated 11.09.2024.16. In the Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024, the name of the deceased 15/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Petitioner's father has been mentioned as V.Govindasamy and in the Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, the Petitioners 2 to 7 herein have been shown as Legal Heirs of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan and the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's father V.Govindasamy, 96 years and mother Kannammal, 85 years have been shown as pre-deceased Legal Heirs of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan.17. After considering the Affidavit filed in support of W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024, deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024 and Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024, this Court vide Order dated 04.02.2025, allowed W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024.18. Thereafter, the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner (wife, sons and daughter of the deceased Petitioner) were impleaded as Petitioners 1 to 6 in this Writ Petition.19. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under 16/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/160211/79 dated 15.02.1980 and the deceased Petitioner joined the duty on 21.02.1980. 19.1. It is submitted that though the deceased Petitioner had completed the probation period of two years, his probation was not declared because the Petitioner had not undergone the basic training for the post of Junior Assistant which was required for the declaration of probation period. Thereafter, the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/17247/86 dated 07.05.1986 sent the Petitioner for basic training. In the said proceedings, it was clearly stated that the Petitioner was a compassionate ground appointee and was in training from 21.05.1986 to 30.07.1986. After the Petitioner had successfully completed the aforesaid basic training, his probation was declared. 19.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the deceased Petitioner had completed 10 years of regular service on 01.03.1991. Thereafter, the Personal Assistant (General) of the then District Collector, Thiruvannamalai vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/17479/99 dated 18.06.1999, 17/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014granted the Selection Grade to the deceased Petitioner and also, revised the deceased Petitioner's salary to that of Selection Grade Junior Assistant. 19.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the charges framed against the deceased Petitioner were baseless. It is stated that the deceased Petitioner did not receive any benefits on the basis of the official records that the deceased Petitioner belonged to “Vanniyar” community. Further, it is submitted that the deceased Petitioner who was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under Rule 10A(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules could not have tampered the Service Register since the same would have been maintained by the Head of the Department. 19.4. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the onus has been wrongly shifted on the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner to prove that the deceased Petitioner would not have tampered the Service Register. Merely because the deceased Petitioner had later obtained Community Certificate that the deceased Petitioner belonged to “Thuluva Vellalar” community, ipso facto does not mean the deceased Petitioner had made fraudulent entries in the Service Register.18/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201420. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent submitted that the Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 issued by the Respondent, terminating the service of the deceased Petitioner is well-reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that the Service Register has been tampered by the deceased Petitioner and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 20.1. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Petitioners have an alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority and hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.20.2. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore vide Letter dated 11.05.2005 bearing No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, informed that on verification of compassionate ground appointment, register reveals that there are no entires for the receipt of the application from the deceased Petitioner requesting the appointment on compassionate grounds that proposals for all the appointments made on compassionate grounds were sent to the Government and got Regularisation 19/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Orders without any omission and necessary entries to that effect were made in that Register which contains such details with effect from 28.12.1997 and that the Regularisation Orders from the Government was not received in Vellore District. 20.3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.3, 13, 14 & 15 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein, it has been stated as follows:-“3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai has submitted a report in Letter No.Rc.A1/13504/94 dated 22.09.2004 stating that the petitioner has stayed away from duty and applied for Un-Earned Leave on M.C. for 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 that his services were not regularized by an order of commencement of his probation that under Rule 23(2) of Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, the temporary employees are not eligible unearned leave on Medical Certificate that he was recommended for the sanction of leave without allowances and that he was sanctioned leave on loss of Pay for a period of 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 in Tiruvannamalai Personal Assistant's (G) Proceedings No.K.Dis (A3) 62154/94, dated 06.10.1994. In this circumstances, the services of the petitioner were not regularized up to July 1994 as informed by the individual.13. The petitioner's mode of appointment was verified with reference to service records of the individual relevant Government orders issued regarding 10(a)(1) appointments, compassionate ground appointment regularisation of their service etc., the records produced by him, and the records received from the other offices. On verification of the above records, the following factors are came out into light:(i) A perusal of his Service Register Volume I at Page 5, a sentence “A candidate orders compassionate ground” is inserted above the original entries i.e., “appointed under 20/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's R.C.A3/162011/79 dated 15.02.1980” joined duty on the Forenoon of 21.02.1980.(ii) A perusal of his Service Register Volume II at Page No.8 the entries regarding his service regularisation w.e.f. 21.08.1980 forenoon, that the completion of his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982, with reference to the North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant (General)'s Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 which was against the facts and the officer's signature who attested the above entries at page 8 entirely differs against the original signatures that found at page 9 volume II of his Service Register. His normal date of completion of probation should be on 20.08.1982 since services were regularised w.e.f. 21.08.1982 as per Service Register. But the Service Register entries were made that he has completed his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 where there was a shortfall of 5 months and 10 days i.e. before the completion of two years of service. Thus, he again managed to make fraudulent entries in official records.14. The services of all Temporary Personnel in the category of Junior Assistant, Typist and Steno Typist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial services etc. recruited through Employment Exchange under General Rule 10(a)(i) and who were in Temporary Service as on 25.06.1984, be regularised w.e.f. 25.06.1984, in the category and in the Department in which they are working vide G.O.Ms.No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984.15. In this particular case, the name of the petitioner was not find place in any of the list which was issued by the erstwhile North Arcot District Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector's proceedings in respect of temporary person whose services were regularised and declaration of probation ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984 who worked in erstwhile North Arcot District at that time. Hence, it was highly doubtful whether the petitioner worked even under 10(a)(i) category in North Arcot District.”21/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201421. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.22. No documents or records have been filed by the Petitioners to substantiate that the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide Proceedings dated 15.02.1980 bearing Na.Ka.No.A3/160211/79 and the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan joined duty on 21.02.1980.23. There is some dispute surrounding the appointment of the deceased petitioner as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 15.02.1980 by the then District Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District. However, the onus is on the respondents to establish that the entry was a false one and was made by the petitioner. It is inconceivable that such an entry could have been made by the petitioner during his lifetime. Service Registers are always under the control of the Head of the Department. If a false entry was made in the Service Register, then the statements of the successive Head Officers should have been obtained, eliciting as to how such an entry was made and how it was allowed to 22/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014remain throughout the career of the petitioner.24. As per Fundamental Rule 74(v) and Rule 6 under Part-III of Annexure-II in Appendix-I of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authorities are required to maintain the Service Book in respect of each and every Government Servant. It is prescribed therein, among other things, that in the Service Book, every step in a Government Servant’s official life, such as temporary and officiating appointments, including promotions of all kinds, the date on which the period of probation is satisfactorily completed, increments, transfers, and leave of absence taken, should be regularly and concurrently recorded, each entry being duly verified with reference to the departmental orders, pay bills, leave statements, and attested by the Head of the Office. 25. Circular/Letter No.18522/FR-3(2)/2015-1 dated 21.05.2015, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government (Training), Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-III) Department, acknowledges that, upon checking the entries made in various Service Books regarding fixation of pay, it was found that in many cases the entries were not in chronological order; in some cases, they were insufficient; and in others, two different pay fixation entries existed for the same date without the earlier entry being cancelled or 23/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014superseded. Such discrepancies cause unnecessary delays in offering remarks on individual requests or departmental proposals, as the case may be, and also create difficulties for audit parties during inspections. To avoid such delays in the disposal of pay fixation or pay regulation requests by competent authorities, it has been emphasized that all entries in the Service Book must be neat, clear, and sufficient in all respects. 26. In the said Circular/Letter dated 21.05.2015, it has been clarified as under:“3. As there is no uniformity in making entries in the Service Books among the various departmental authorities, the following standard formats are prescribed with regard to 'Maintenance of Service Registers in accordance with Rule 74(iv) and rule 6 under Part-III of Annexure-II in Appendix-I of the Fundamental Rules, so as to maintain the records of service, in full.4. All the competent authorities in various Government Departments are directed to maintain the entries in the Service Books of the individuals under their control, in the prescribed standard format annexed to this guidelines, for effective maintenance of Records of Service, uniformly in all the Government Departments, including Secretariat Departments.”27. As far as the maintenance of Service Registers are concerned, it is for the Head of the Department to maintain the same as per G.O.Ms.No.114, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2) Department dated 24/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201403.09.2020. Also, it has been stated that the Service Registers will be maintained by the Head of the Department and it is for the individual employee to verify it once in 3 years to make corrections if any mistake in the entry. 28. Under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, there are also certain discrepancies surrounding the community declared and found in the Service Register as also the date of the death of the deceased Petitioner.29. As mentioned earlier in the facts narrated, the deceased Petitioner was dismissed from service by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District vide Proceedings dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000. This was after a detailed inquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity to the deceased Petitioner to produce the following documents:-Sl.No.Required Documents1.First Appointment Order issued by the Collector of North Arcot District.2.Service Registration Order in the cadre of Junior Assistant.3.Probation Completion Order.4.Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School in which he was last studied.5.S.S.L.C Mark List.25/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201430. Merely because the deceased Petitioner was unable to produce the same terminating from service with immediate effect was not justified. This was successfully challenged by the deceased Petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005. By an Order dated 01.11.2010, this Court had set aside the aforesaid Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000, passed by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District.31. It is pursuant to the aforesaid Order, a fresh Charge Memo was issued to the deceased Petitioner on 02.03.2011. In the Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011, the following charges were framed against the deceased Petitioner:-TamilEnglishFw;wr;rhl;L?1jpU/$p/KUfd; 24/01/2003 md;W jpUtz;zhkiy tl;lhr;rpaUf;F rhjpr;rhd;W bgw bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;l kDtpy; ,e;J?bjhG ntshsh; vd bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ mjd;nghpy; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyuhy; ,e;J?bjhG ntshsh; vd ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gl;L jpUtz;zhkiy kz;ly Jiztl;lhr;rpah; rhd;W vz;/ep/K/($p2)63-2003. ehs; 06/02/2003?y; (rhjpr;rhd;W ml;il vz;/4988780) tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Charge-1The Petitioner has given false information regarding caste, he belonged to Hindu Thuluva Vellalar but in the service record it is mentioned as “Vanniar”. Thus, violated Rule 20(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.26/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishvdnt jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gth; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;l tFg;gpidr; nrh;e;j bjhG ntshsh; ,dj;jpidr;– nrh;e;jtuhf ,Ue;Jk;. jdJ gzpg;gjpntl;oy; bgha;ahf ,e;J ? td;dpah; vd jtwhf gjpt[fis nkw;bfhz;Ls;sjd; K:yk; jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973 tpjp 20(1)(2)?I kPwpa[s;shh;/Fw;wr;rhl;L?2jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gtuJ gzpg;gjpntl;oid ghprPyid bra;jjpy; gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?1. gf;fk; 5?y; appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's Rc.A3/162011/79, dated 15.02.1980 vd;w mry; thrfj;jpw;F ,ilna A candidate orders compassionate ground vd;w thrfk; ,ilr;brUfy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?2 gf;fk; 8?y; tlhw;fhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; neh;Kf cjtpahsh; (bghJ) mth;fspd; bray;Kiwfs; vz;/g/K/17247-86. ehs; 30/06/1987?d;go 21/08/1980 Kw;gfy; Kjy; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;ljhft[k;. jFjpfhz;gUtj;jpid 10/03/1982?y; Kof;fg;gl;ljhft[k; gjpt[fs; cs;sd/ ,g;gjpt[fSf;F xg;gkpl;Ls;s Charge-2There were no records in the Office relating to the regularization of the Petitioner's temporary service and declaration of probation, but there were entries regarding it in the service record. Therefore, the Petitioner was responsible for the false entries and committed misconduct under Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.27/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishmYtyhpd; ifbahg;gkhdJ. gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?2 gf;fk; 9?y; ,lk;bgw;Ws;s mYtyhpd; mry; xg;gj;Jld; ntWgl;L fhzg;gLfpwJ/ gzpg;gjpntl;oy; fhzg;gLk; gjpt[fspd;go jdpauJ gzp 21/08/1982 md;W tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;L ,Uf;Fnkahdhy;. jdpah; ,ay;ghf jFjpfhz;gUtk; Kof;f ntz;oa ehs; 20/08/1982 gpw;gfy; MFk;/ Mdhy; gzpg;gjpntl;oy; 10/03/1982 gpw;gfYld; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpid epiwt[ bra;jjhf 2 tUl';fSf;F Fiwthf. 5 khjk; 10 ehl;fs; Kd;djhfnt epiwt[ bra;jjhf gjpt[fs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. ,th; mYtyf Mtz';fspy; bgha;ahd gjpt[fis nkw;bfhz;Ls;sjd; jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973 tpjp 20(3)(i)?I kPwpa[s;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L?3jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gtiu fPH;f;fz;l mry; rhd;Wfis 28/02/2005 md;W jpUtz;zhkiy khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; neh;Kf cjtpahsh; (bghJ) mth;fsplk; M$h;gLj;j nfhug;gl;lJ/1)tlhw;fhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytuhy; tH';fg;gl;l Charge-3The Petitioner failed to produce the Original Appointment Order, Regularisation Order and Declaration of Probation Order, Transfer Certificate, S.S.L.C Mark List, despite being provided several opportunities. Therefore, committed misconduct under Rule 20(1)(2) and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 28/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishKjy; gzpepakd Miz mry;2),sepiy cjtpahsh; epiyapy; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;l cj;jput[3)jFjpfhz;gUtk; epiwt[ bra;J cj;jputplg;gl;l cj;jput[4)gs;sp khw;Wr;rhd;wpjH; mry; (SSLC)5)kjpg;bgz; gl;oay; (SSLC) 32. The aforesaid Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 culminated in the Impugned Proceedings/Impugned Order dated 21.07.2014, dismissing the Petitioner from service on 21.07.2014 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000. Operative portion of which has been already extracted in the beginning of this order. 33. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner died on 04.07.2024, after he was dismissed from service on 21.07.2014 by the Respondent. 34. In the application filed for impleading the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024, a copy of the Death Certificate of the deceased Petitioner was issued by the Chennai Corporation, 29/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Department of Public Health Department dated 26.07.2024 and the Legal Heir Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar on 11.09.2024 bearing Certificate No.7202408292493. 35. The age of the deceased Petitioner's father has been given as 96 years, however, it is not clear how and why the age has been given as 96 years if the deceased Petitioner's father had already pre-deceased him and had died on 01.08.1972. 36. If the age of the father of the deceased Petitioner was 96 years on the date of issuance of the Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024, the deceased Petitioner's father would have been born in the year 1928. If the deceased Petitioner's father was born in the year 1928 and had died on 01.08.1972, on the said date i.e., 01.08.1972, the deceased Petitioner's father's age would have been 44 years.37. In the 1st Termination Order dated 14.10.2005, which has been set aside by this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010 in W.P.No.35094 of 2005, the deceased Petitioner's father Late Mr.V.Govindasamy was said to have been working as a Jeep Driver in the Revenue Department of South Arcot District 30/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014and that the deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 15.02.1980 under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on compassionate grounds. 38. According to the deceased Petitioner, the deceased Petitioner's services were regularized on 21.08.1980 with retrospective effect from 21.02.1980 being the date on which, the deceased Petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Junior Assistant in North Arcot Ambedkar District. 39. The deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Special Revenue Inspector (Junior Assistant Cadre) in the Office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Chengam on temporary basis.40. One of the crucial date that is relevant for the present case is the bifurcation of the North Arcot District by Government Order dated 30.09.1989. After the said date, the North Arcot District was bifurcated into 2 Districts as North Arcot Ambedkar District into Vellore District and Tiruvannamalai District. 41. Even after the aforesaid bifurcation, the deceased Petitioner continued 31/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014to work as Special Revenue Inspector (Junior Assistant Cadre), Office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Chengam and continued to draw the periodical increments such as Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate in a routine manner. This is evident from a reading of Paragraph 2 of the Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 which was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005 vide its order dated 01.11.2010. 42. However, in the Counter Affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition, it has also been confirmed in Paragraph 2 of the Counter Affidavit that periodical increments such as Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate were sanctioned to the deceased Petitioner in a routine manner and that the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District, had requested to refer the matter to the Collector of North Arcot District to have a check of the matters and send a report in connection with the regularisation of the services of the deceased Petitioner. 43. It is stated that in response to the same, the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District submitted a report on 22.09.2004 to state that the deceased Petitioner has stayed away from duty and applied for Unearned Leave on Medical 32/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Certificate for 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994. It is further stated that the services of the deceased Petitioner were not regularized by an Order of commencement of probation under Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933 and therefore as a temporary employee, the deceased Petitioner was not eligible for Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate and that he has recommended for sanction of leave without allowances and that the aforesaid 30 days leave was on loss of pay for the period between 01.09.1994 and 30.09.1994 which was sanctioned by the Tiruvannamalai District Collector's Personal Assistant Proceedings dated 06.10.1994 bearing No.K.Dis(A3)62154/1994. Therefore, it has been stated that the services of the deceased Petitioner were not regularized up to July 1994. 44. It is not clear as to how the appointment of the deceased Petitioner can be questioned after he was allowed to leave on loss of pay and was allowed to avail Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate earlier and all of a sudden, treated the deceased Petitioner as a temporary employee in the year 1984. It is also not clear how and why the deceased Petitioner was allowed to work as a temporary employee for a periodically long period since 15.02.1980. 33/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201445. The burden of proof clearly lies on the Department. The officers who had signed the service entries were not examined. The petitioner is not bound to prove his innocence regarding the alleged manipulation of the Service Register, as the Service Register is never accessible to any employee, much less to anyone who is not an employee. It is highly inconceivable that the petitioner could have manipulated the Service Register even before he entered into service. The Service Register may or may not have been manipulated by the then Head of the Department and other officers who were stationed at the headquarters when the office was located within the North Arcot Ambedkar District, which subsequently came to be substituted by the Thiruvannamalai District. 46. In this case, the deceased Petitioner has not expressed any doubt regarding his status as a permanent employee of the Respondent since his appointment on 15.02.1980. In fact, it is the case of the deceased Petitioner that his services were regularized as early as 21.08.1980 with retrospective effect from the date of appointment after completion of 6 months of service and thereafter he was on probation. 47. It is the further case of the deceased Petitioner that he completed the 34/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014probation period of 2 years but his probation was not declared since he was not sent for basic training for the post of Junior Assistant which was required for declaration of probation. 48. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.996, Personal and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984 was issued for regularisation of services of the temporary personnel recruited under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and who were in temporary service as on 25.06.1984 with effect from 25.06.1984. However, the deceased Petitioner's name was not there in the list prepared by the then North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant in respect of temporary persons whose services were regularized pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order. 49. In this background, the deceased Petitioner had also sent a Representation to the North Arcot District Collector for basic training to the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to which the then North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant recommended the name of the deceased Petitioner along with 9 others for being sent to training to the Civil Service Training Institute in Bhavanisagar, Erode District vide Proceedings dated 07.05.1986 bearing Ref.Na.Ka.No.A3/17247/86. 35/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201450. Relevant portion of the aforesaid Proceedings dated 07.05.1986 reads as under:- “Miz:-gthdprhfh; muR mYtyh; gapw;rp ikaj;jpy; jkpH;ehL mikr;Rg;gzpj;njh;thizf;FGtpduhy; 1974?k; Mz;ow;Fk; 1976?k; Mz;ow;Fk; ,ilapy; elj;jg;gl;l njh;tpy; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fSf;Fk;. fUiz mog;gilapy; epakdk; bgw;w ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fSf;Fkhd 47?tJ gapw;rp mzp 21/5/86 Kjy; 30/7/86 tiuapy; nkw;bfhs;sg;gltpUf;fpwJ/ nkw;go gapw;rpf;F ,t;tUtha; myfpy; gzpg[hpa[k; fUizapd; mog;gilapy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fs; - jkpH;ehL njh;thizf;FGtpduhy; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fspy; jyh Ie;J tPjk; fPH;f;fz;l 10 (gj;J) egh;fis mDg;gg;gLfpd;wd/fUizapd; mog;gilapy;:1/ jpU/ nfh/KUfd;. ,sepiy cjtpahsh;. jhYf;fh mYtyfk;. JpUtz;zhkiy/2/ /////3/ /////4/ /////5/ /////jkpH;ehL njh;thizak; K:yk; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;lth;fs;;:6 ////7 /////8 /////9 /////10 /////2) nkw;go ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fis 20/5/86 md;W gpw;gfy; 2/00 kzpf;F nkw;go gapw;rp epiyaj;jpy; nrUtjw;F 36/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014VJthf xU ehs Kd;djhf gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gLkhW rk;ke;jg;gl;l rhh;epiy mYtyh;fs; nfhug;gLfpwhh;fs;/3) rk;ke;jg;gl;l egh;fs; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;l njjpapid ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F bjhptpf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/4) nkw;go egh;fsplkpUe;J ghh;itapy; fhdDk; fojj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sJ nghy; xg;ge;jg;gj;jpuj;jpidg;bgw;W ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itg;gJld; nkw;go egh;fs; gapw;rpf;F mDg;gg;gLk;tiu elg;g[ Mz;oy; vLj;jpUf;Fk; jw;bray; tpLg;g[ tptuj;ija[k; gthdprhfh; Kjy;tUf;Fk;. ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;Fk; jtwhJ mDg;gp itf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/5) nkw;go egh;fSf;F mth;fs; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gLk; Kd;dnu nghJkhd nghf;Ftuj;J bryt[ Kd;gzk; tH';f ntz;oaJ/ ,jDld; ghh;itf;fojk; kw;Wk; ml;ltiza[k; mDg;gp itf;fg;gLfpwJ/”51. Thus, there is no dispute that the deceased Petitioner was indeed recommended for being sent for basic training to the Civil Service Training Institute in Bhavanisagar, Erode District. 52. Having extracted the work of the Petitioner since the date of joining on 21.02.1980, it is not open for the Respondent to state that the deceased Petitioner was not appointed and that there were manipulation in the Service Registers maintained by the Respondent by inserting / by fabricating the records 37/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014by making it seem as the Petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Further, having extracted the work since 1980, it is not open for the Respondent to terminate the services of the deceased Petitioner either at the 1st instance on 14.10.2005 or thereafter vide impugned Proceedings dated 21.07.2014. 53. The only difficulty that arises is on account of the failure of the deceased Petitioner to produce the documents which were called for by the Respondent. However, this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010, set aside the Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000, passed by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District. 54. Pursuant to Order dated 01.11.2010, a fresh Charge Memo was issued to the deceased Petitioner on 02.03.2011 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The deceased Petitioner has clearly stated that the deceased Petitioner joined in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mambazhapattu, Villupuram District during the years 1973-1974 by producing the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Arakandanallur where the deceased Petitioner studied during the years 1971-1972 and 1972-1973.38/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201455. It must be recalled that during the period when the deceased Petitioner studied in the School and till 1989, there was a common reservation for the persons belonging to Backward Class (BC), Most Backward Class (MBC) Community. In fact, there was no distinction between the aforesaid 2 classes. 56. The reservations were based on quotas for Non-Brahmins, Brahmins and Harijans, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians and Muslims. 57. Only in the year 1989, after the implementation of Mandal Commission, such reservations for Most Backward Classes (MBC) was made and therefore merely because the School Records indicating that the deceased Petitioner belonged to Vanniyar Community in the era when there was no benefit accruing to a person belonging to Vanniyar Community cannot be put against the deceased Petitioner either based on the School Records or at the time of his appointment into service by the Respondent under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 58. That apart, the appointment of the deceased Petitioner is said to have 39/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014been made on compassionate ground after the death of his father on 01.08.1972 who was working as a Jeep Driver in the Revenue Department of South Arcot District. 59. As far as the 2nd Charge in the Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 that there were no records in the office relating to regularization of the deceased Petitioner's temporary service but there were entries recorded in the Service Registers and that the deceased Petitioner was responsible for making false entries and committed misconduct under Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. There is no iota of evidence to substantiate the same as the Respondent has not brought any evidence to show that the Service Register was indeed tampered by the deceased Petitioner. 60. As mentioned elsewhere, the Service Registers are maintained by the Head Office and if there was indeed fabrication of the Service Registers by the deceased Petitioner, the deceased Petitioner ought to have been criminally prosecuted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 61. The failure on the part of the deceased Petitioner to produce the Original Appointment Order and Regularisation Order and therefore committed 40/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014misconduct under Rule 20(1) and (2) and Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, though may give an inference that the deceased Petitioner was not a permanent employee of the Respondent, it cannot be countenanced, as the deceased Petitioner was drawing regular salary against the sanctioned post from the year 1980 after his initial appointment on 15.02.1980. 62. Only in the year 1994, there were issues raised by the Respondent against the deceased Petitioner which led to the initiation of Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 which was set aside by this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010.63. No doubt, there are few inherent weakness as far as the deceased Petitioner is concerned inasmuch as the deceased Petitioner could not produce any document called for earlier by the Respondent.64. The fact remains that the deceased Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and continued to be in service till his termination on 14.10.2005 earlier and thereafter till 21.07.2024 pursuant to Order dated 01.11.2010 of the Writ Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005.41/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201465. The fact that a recommendation was made to send the deceased Petitioner for basic training for probation on 07.05.1986 is not in dispute. If the deceased Petitioner had not completed probation, the deceased Petitioner's service should have been terminated then and there. Instead, the deceased Petitioner was allowed to continue and the issue was raked up only in the year 1994 for the first time when the deceased Petitioner appears to have applied for Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate between 01.09.1994 and 30.09.1994 for a period of 30 days. 66. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that even if the probation was not declared as has been stated by the Respondent, there is no justification on the part of the Respondent to have continued the deceased Petitioner in service contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 67. In fact, the Respondent as a Model Employer ought to have exercised the power under Rule 23(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules regularizing the services of the deceased Petitioner. There are also no indication that the aforesaid exercise was made and the deceased 42/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Petitioner was discharged from service earlier in terms of Rule 26(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 68. To explain further, Rule 26(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as under:-“26.Termination or extension of probation - (a) Where the special rules of any service prescribe a period of probation for appointment as a full member of the service, or where such period of probation has been extended under General Rule 28, the appointing authority may, at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation or the extended period of probation, as the case may be— (i) discharge a probationer from the service for want of a vacancy; or (ii) at its discretion, by order, either extend the period of probation of the probationer in case the probation has not been extended under General Rule 28 or terminate his probation and discharge him from service after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed termination of probation; Provided that where a probationer has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the imposition on him of any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings a tentative conclusion is arrived as to terminate his probation, a further opportunity of showing cause specifically against termination of his probation need not be given to him. Explanation - An opportunity to show cause may be given after the appointing authority arrives at a provisional conclusion 43/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014on the suitability or otherwise of the probationer for full membership of the service, either by such authority himself or by a subordinate authority who is superior in rank to the probationer. (b) .......”69. That apart, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 cannot apply to a person who was never been regularized. It applies to every member of Civil Service of the State and every person holding civil post under the State. In this connection, Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 is reproduced below:-“2. They shall apply to every member of the Civil Service of the State and to every person holding a civil post under the State except to the extent otherwise expressly provided:- i.by or under any law for the time being in force or in any rule; ii.in respect of any such member by contract or agreement subsisting between such member or person and the Government. Explanation.- A member of the civil service of the State and every person holding a civil post under the State whose services are placed at the disposal of any company, corporation, organization or local authority shall, for the purpose of these rules, be deemed to be a member of such civil service or be deemed to hold such civil post, notwithstanding that his salary is drawn from a source other than the Consolidated Fund of the State.” 70. The deceased Petitioner does not fall within the exceptions provided 44/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014in Sub-Clause (i) and Sub-Clause (ii) to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The fact that Charge Memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 on 02.03.2011 itself indicates that the deceased Petitioner was a regular employee of the Respondent and therefore the charges framed against him are inconsistent and the very basis on which the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the deceased Petitioner. 71. Therefore, on this count also, the Impugned Proceeding/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000, issued by the Respondent is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.72. Consequently, the Respondent is directed to treat the period from the date of termination of the service of the deceased Petitioner from 21.07.2014 to the actual date of superannuation as the deceased Petitioner been in service without monetary benefits/without actual pay. 73. Since the deceased Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and continued to be in service till his termination on 14.10.2005 earlier and thereafter till 21.07.2024, the deceased Petitioner shall be entitled to all the 45/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014attendant benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity etc., and other mandatory benefits together with regular pension from the date of superannuation till the date of his death on 04.07.2024. 74. There is no question of denying any of the service benefits of the deceased Petitioner or his dependents in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 75. Therefore, Wife of the deceased Petitioner namely Mrs.M.Anandayi, shall be eligible for family pension in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 76. The above exercise shall be carried out by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 77. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. However, liberty is given to the respondent to examine the records as to who had allegedly manipulated the service register and to take steps to prosecute the persons involved. No costs. 46/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014 09.07.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking Order / No Speaking Ordermrr/arb/jenTo:The District Collector,Thiruvannamalai District,Thiruvannamalai.C.SARAVANAN, J.mrr/arb/jen47/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014W.P.No.26243 of 201409.07.202548/48

W.P.No.26243 of 2014be submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per the order dated 21.04.2025. One last opportunity is granted to furnish the same. This case is adjourned to 09.07.2025, on which date it will be disposed of based on the available records.6. Since a copy of the communication has been enclosed, the same shall be filed along with the affidavit of the respondent on or before the next date of hearing.”3. Thereafter, the respondent has filed Additional Counter Affidavit which was filed today i.e., on 09.07.2025 in the Court and a communication dated 30.05.2025 of the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District bearing reference R.C.No.A3/4728/2000, addressed to the Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai wherein it has been stated as follows:-“4. The Petitioner's mode of appointment was verified with reference to service records of the individual relevant Government Orders issued regarding 10(a)(1) appointments, compassionate Ground appointment regularisation of their service etc., the records produced by him, and the records received from the other offices. On verification of the above records, the following factors are came out into light. i.A perusal of his Service Register Volume I at Page 5, a sentence “A candidate orders compassionate ground” is inserted above the original entries i.e., “appointed under rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's R.C.A3/162011/79, dated 15.02.1980” joined duty on the Forenoon of 21.02.1980.ii.A perusal of his Service Register Volume II at Page No.8 the entries regarding his service regularisation with effect from 21.08.1980 forenoon, that the 4/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014completion of his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982, with reference to the North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant (General)'s Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86, dated 30.06.1987 which was against the facts and the officer's signature who attested the above entries at page 8 entirely differs against the original signatures that found at page 9 volume II of his Service Register. His normal date of completion of probation should be on 20.08.1982 since services were regularised with effect from 21.08.1982 as per Service Register. But the Service Register entries were made that he has completed his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 where there was a shortfall of 5 months and 10 days i.e., before the completion of two years of service. Thus, he again managed to make fraudulent entries in official records.5. A fresh letter in Rc.A3/4728/2000 dated 04.02.2000 and 27.03.2000, were sent to the Collector of North Arcot District, Vellore stating that a perusal of the Service Register of the individual reveals that he has been appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground on temporary basis under 10(a)(i) rules by the Collector of erstwhile North Arcot District in his Rc.A3/160211/79, dated 15.02.1980 and joined duty on the F.N of 21.02.1980, that it has been noted in the Service Register that the services have been regularised with effect from 21.08.1980 and he has completed his period of probation on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of erstwhile North Arcot District in his Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86, dated 30.06.1987 and that the Collector of Vellore has been requested to send the details of the G.O as such the orders of the Government is necessary as per rules in this case.6. Then the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore in his letter No.Rc.A3/23817/2000, dated 14.03.2001 has informed that the verification of the records and registers maintained in the concerned seat of his office reveals that there has no entry in respect of his appointment in the register for whom 5/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014appointments were made on compassionate grounds. In addition to that there has no entry about the commencement and completion of his probation in the Probation Register for Junior Assistants.7. In continuation, the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore in his letter No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, dated 11.05.2005 has informed that the verification of the compassionate ground appointment register reveals that there are no entries for the receipt of the application from Thiru.G.Murugan requesting the appointment on compassionate grounds that proposals for all the appointments made on compassionate grounds were sent to Government and got regularisation orders without any omission and necessary entries to that effect were made in that register which contains such details with effect from 28.12.1977, and that the regularisation orders from the Government was not received in Vellore District. In addition, the Collector of Vellore, informed in his letter No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, dated 27.06.2005 that the name of the Petitioner, Thiru.G.Murugan has not been taken place in the list to whom services were regularised as 10(a)(i) candidates in the erstwhile North Arcot District as per G.O.Ms.No.996, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department, dated 22.09.1994.8. The Collector of Cuddalore District has reported in his letter No.L.Dis (A4)/77840/2002, dated 17.02.2003 that action was not taken to give appointment on compassionate ground to the individual, while he was addressed from this office as his father worked as Driver in South Arcot District Revenue Establishment when he died on 01.08.1972.9. Based on the above particulars, the work has been initiated on how the individual joined in the Government Service. In mean time, sufficient time was given to the individual to prove his appointment by submitting valid documents. The individual had not submitted any documents. Finally the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai passed an order to terminate his services vide his proceedings No.A3/4728/2000, dated 14.10.2005.6/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201410. .....11. .....12. .....13. The Legal heir certificate dated 11.09.2024 was issued to the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan. In the legal heir certificate, the age of the deceased Petitioner's father Govindasamy has been mentioned as 96 years instead of 53 years. The above certificate was issued on 11.09.2024. Before approving the legal heir certificate, the issuing authority/the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk failed to see the age of both deceased persons such as Govindasamy and Kannammal mentioned in the applied certificate form which was forwarded by concerned Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar. The age of Govindasamy was to be mentioned as 53 (Date of Birth: 25.12.1919 and date of death: 01.08.1972). As per pension book of deceased Kannammal, the age of Kannammal has mentioned as 38 on 1972. But the legal heir certificate issuing Officials mentioned the age of Govindasamy and Kannammal as 96 and 85 respectively. The age of the deceased persons has been approximately wrongly added from date of birth to correspond to the date of issuance of the legal heir certificate.14. A perusal of the Service Register's extracts at page 1 and 2 of the deceased Govindasamy that he belongs to “Thuluva Velala” community and at the page of service roll it was mentioned as “Thozu Vellalar” which comes under B.C. Category. The persons belong to Thozhu/Thuluva Vellalar Community are called colloquially as Naicker in Village side language of North Arcot Districts of Tamil Nadu. In this manner, the deceased Govindasamy name has been registered in Revenue Land Records as Govindasamy Naicker.15. Necessary documents have been enclosed for your perusal. Hence I requested to submit the informations mentioned supra befere Hon'ble Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits and thus render justice.”7/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 20144. The Additional Counter Affidavit which was filed in the open Court today i.e., on 09.07.2025, the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District has more or less extracted the content of the aforesaid communication and therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. A specific query was as to why and how the salary was disbursed, even if there was a manipulation in the service register as there would be other contemporaneous documents in the Department, which would have been acted based on the appointment made as otherwise, the salary would not have been credited to the account of the deceased petitioner, since the date of his appointment on 15.02.1980 on “compassionate grounds” under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and after the petitioner joined duty on 21.02.1980. 6. It appears that the records have not been maintained by the respondent the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District after North Arcot District was bifurcated into 2 Districts as North Arcot Ambedkar District presently known as Vellore District and Tiruvannamalai District and papers were transmitted from one office to another. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, I am 8/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014not making any further changes in the order that was made ready by me “for pronouncing orders” on 17.06.2025 as there are no other ground available to sustain the impugned order. 7. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying to quash the Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000 issued by the Respondent.8. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the Petitioner was issued with an Order of Termination dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 by the Respondent. Challenging the said Termination Order, the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35094 of 2005 before this Court. This Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010 allowed the said Writ Petition with the following observations:-“10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of termination dated 14.10.2005 is quashed and the matter is once again remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent shall put the petitioner on notice with regard to the allegations levelled against him and give him reasonable opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice and expedite the proceedings and complete the same and pass orders not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.11. This Court has not touched upon the merits of the case projected either by the petitioner or by the respondent and 9/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014the respondent shall decided the issue on its own merits based on the materials available on record.”9. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order dated 01.11.2010 of this Court, the Petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Though the Petitioner submitted his Defense Statement dated 19.08.2011 denying the charges framed against him in the Charge Memo, a domestic inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer had held in his findings vide Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2011 that the Petitioner is found guilty of all the offences framed in the Charge Memo.10. Thereafter, the Respondent vide Letter dated 27.09.2011, called upon the Petitioner to give a reply to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, in response to which, the Petitioner submitted his reply vide Letter dated 20.10.2011. However, without considering the Petitioner's reply, the Respondent vide Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000, dismissed the Petitioner from service. 11. Operative portion of the Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 10/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201421.07.2014 reads as under:- “Explanation for Charge No.1:The department side has not produced any document indicating that entry regarding my Caste was recorded in my Service Register on the basis of School Transfer Certificate produced by me. Either the concerned School Transfer Certificate copy should have been marked as evidence or the personnel who made such entry in the service register should have deposed as such before the enquiry officer holding the charge-1 as proved is not supported by evidence on record and purely a guess-work indulged in by the enquiry officer. There must be a motivation for any offence. My Service Register was opened between my date of joining viz., 21.02.1980 and 23.03.1981 (date of first entry in my Service Register at Page 1). During the years 1980 and 1981, there was no classification as “Most Backward Community” and no reservation was made on that basis in the matter of appointment and educational concessions. Such a status was recognized only during the years 1989-1991. In these circumstances, the 1st page entry in my Service Register indicating my caste as “Hindu-Vanniar” instead of “Hindu-Thuzhu-Vellalar” could easily be surmised as clerical error committed by the official who maintained Service Registers during that time.Explanation for Charge No.2:The enquiry officer's report holding Charge II as proved is also inappropriate. The original appointment order, order of regularization of service in Junior Assistant cadre, Probation declaration order are all communications issued by the District Collector. Service Register entries on the basis of orders received from the District Collector have been duly made by a competent officer of the rank of Tahsildar. Individual copies of such orders sent to me could not be traced out due to lapse of time. So also the SSLC Mark Sheet. Even while I was taking steps to get duplicate copied of schools, the District Collector was also taking simultaneous steps to get duplicate copies of my 11/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014school records from the educational institutions where I have studied and I came to know what was happening. Hence, I did not pursue further. In these circumstances, I am not at fault for the loss of my copies of the above said official communications and the school records. The enquiry officer has given a presumptive finding in respect of Charge II and the same is not supported by any evidence on records.Explanation for Charge No.3:Entries in Service Register are made only on the basis of official communications received from the District Collector by the officer who maintains the service register with regard to service matters. The individual employee has nothing to do with the entries that are made in his service register. Entries in service register are not made at the behest of individual employee, commencement of probation, completion of probation, are issued by the District Collector to the Officer under whose control that particular employee is serving and on the basis of such orders entries are made in the service registers. The enquiry officer himself is an officer of the rank of Tahsildar and he knows what is what in these matters. The individual employee could not influence the Officer to make any entry in his favour. Yet to observe that:The above-mentioned records have been created in favor of the individual. This could have been created out of the interest of the individual, but rather out of the interest of the authorities and the administration. Therefore, Charge III against the individual has also been proven.is nothing short of guess-work. On the other hand, the enquiry offier has put the integrity of the then Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai to shame by stating as above. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer's report holding charge III as proved is not supported by evidence on record and purely a guess-work indulged in by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer's report holding charge III as poved is also inappropriate. The original appointment order, order of regularization of service in Junior Assistant Cadre, 12/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014probation declartion order are all communications issued by the District Collector. Service Register entries on the basis of orders received from the District Collector have been duly made by a competent Officer of the rank of Tahsildar. Individual copies of such orders sent to me could not be trced out due to lapse of time. So also the SSLC Mark sheet. Even while I was taking steps to get duplicate copies of schools, the District Collector was also taking simulatneous steps to get duplicate copies of my school records from the educational institutions where I had studied and I came to know what was happening. Hence, I did not pursue further. In these circumstances, I am not fault for the loss of copies of the above said official communications and the school records. The enquiry officer has given a presumptive finding in respect of Charge III and the same is not supported by any evidence on record.3) The allegations made against the individual, the individual's explanation, the statement of the investigating officer, and the individual's explanation were carefully considered. The individual's employment record states that he belongs to the Vanniyar community. The individual did not deny this. However, the community certificate which was obtained later states that the individual is a Thuluva Vellalar. Therefore, it is proven that the individual was the reason for entering incorrect community information in the employment register. It is stated that the individual was appointed on compassionate grounds and an insertion has been made in the temporary appointment registers. There is no counter signature for this and it is mentioned in the individual’s service register that the individual’s services were regularized from 21.08.1980 and the probationary period was completed on 10.03.1982. However, it was considered that the individual’s services were not regularized and the individual was not eligible for Un-Earned leave on medical certificate and the individual’s request for Un-Eaarned leave on medical certificate from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 was not accepted and the individual was allowed Un-Earned leave during this 13/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014period. The individual did not object to this. Therefore, it is clear that the individual’s services were regularized; the individual’s probationary period was completed and till 1994, no reference was made in the proceedings No.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 of General Personal Assistant of former North Arcot District Collector and that these entries were made before that date. It is also clear that the above mentioned P.M.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 is not related to the services of the individual and is related to another subject and the name of the individual is not mentioned in the register of compassionate appointment. It is also clear that these entries are false. It is also clear that the probation period of Junior Revenue Assistant is 2 years, but, in the above mentioned entries, it is mentioned that the services of the individual were regularized from 21.08.1990 and the probation period was completed two years earlier on 10.03.1982. The individual has been repeatedly asked to produce the order appointing him on compassionate grounds, the order regularizing his services and completing his probationary period, but, he has not produced them till date. Therefore, these notes have been proven beyond doubt to be false. It is concluded that the individual has made arrangement to make such false entries and that these entries have been made for the benefit of the individual.4) As mentioned above, the explanation given by the individual for the allegations against him is not valid since the three allegations made against the individual have been proven beyond doubt. Hence, it is hereby ordered that the former Junior Assistant of the Welfare Office of the Special Tahsildar, Mr. Komurugan be dismissed from Service from 14.10.2005 (date from which the individual was terminated from service).5) As against these orders, an appeal may be filed before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, within 60 days from the date of receipt of these orders.”14/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201412. Aggrieved by the Impugned Proceedings dated 21.07.2014 issued by the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.13. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner died on 04.07.2024. 14. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan (wife, sons and daughter of the deceased Petitioner) have filed Petition in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024 before this Court seeking to substitute them as Petitioners in the place of deceased Petitioner G.Murugan in this Writ Petition.15. The Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan have filed an affidavit in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024 along with deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024 as well as their Legal Heirship Certificate dated 11.09.2024.16. In the Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024, the name of the deceased 15/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Petitioner's father has been mentioned as V.Govindasamy and in the Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, the Petitioners 2 to 7 herein have been shown as Legal Heirs of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan and the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's father V.Govindasamy, 96 years and mother Kannammal, 85 years have been shown as pre-deceased Legal Heirs of the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan.17. After considering the Affidavit filed in support of W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024, deceased Petitioner G.Murugan's Death Certificate dated 26.07.2024 and Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024, this Court vide Order dated 04.02.2025, allowed W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024.18. Thereafter, the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner (wife, sons and daughter of the deceased Petitioner) were impleaded as Petitioners 1 to 6 in this Writ Petition.19. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under 16/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/160211/79 dated 15.02.1980 and the deceased Petitioner joined the duty on 21.02.1980. 19.1. It is submitted that though the deceased Petitioner had completed the probation period of two years, his probation was not declared because the Petitioner had not undergone the basic training for the post of Junior Assistant which was required for the declaration of probation period. Thereafter, the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/17247/86 dated 07.05.1986 sent the Petitioner for basic training. In the said proceedings, it was clearly stated that the Petitioner was a compassionate ground appointee and was in training from 21.05.1986 to 30.07.1986. After the Petitioner had successfully completed the aforesaid basic training, his probation was declared. 19.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the deceased Petitioner had completed 10 years of regular service on 01.03.1991. Thereafter, the Personal Assistant (General) of the then District Collector, Thiruvannamalai vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/17479/99 dated 18.06.1999, 17/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014granted the Selection Grade to the deceased Petitioner and also, revised the deceased Petitioner's salary to that of Selection Grade Junior Assistant. 19.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the charges framed against the deceased Petitioner were baseless. It is stated that the deceased Petitioner did not receive any benefits on the basis of the official records that the deceased Petitioner belonged to “Vanniyar” community. Further, it is submitted that the deceased Petitioner who was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under Rule 10A(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules could not have tampered the Service Register since the same would have been maintained by the Head of the Department. 19.4. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the onus has been wrongly shifted on the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner to prove that the deceased Petitioner would not have tampered the Service Register. Merely because the deceased Petitioner had later obtained Community Certificate that the deceased Petitioner belonged to “Thuluva Vellalar” community, ipso facto does not mean the deceased Petitioner had made fraudulent entries in the Service Register.18/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201420. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent submitted that the Impugned Proceedings/Order dated 21.07.2014 issued by the Respondent, terminating the service of the deceased Petitioner is well-reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that the Service Register has been tampered by the deceased Petitioner and therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 20.1. Further, the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955, the Petitioners have an alternate remedy before the Appellate Authority and hence, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.20.2. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the Collector of North Arcot, Vellore vide Letter dated 11.05.2005 bearing No.Rc.A3/11368/2005, informed that on verification of compassionate ground appointment, register reveals that there are no entires for the receipt of the application from the deceased Petitioner requesting the appointment on compassionate grounds that proposals for all the appointments made on compassionate grounds were sent to the Government and got Regularisation 19/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Orders without any omission and necessary entries to that effect were made in that Register which contains such details with effect from 28.12.1997 and that the Regularisation Orders from the Government was not received in Vellore District. 20.3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.3, 13, 14 & 15 of the Counter Affidavit, wherein, it has been stated as follows:-“3. The Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai has submitted a report in Letter No.Rc.A1/13504/94 dated 22.09.2004 stating that the petitioner has stayed away from duty and applied for Un-Earned Leave on M.C. for 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 that his services were not regularized by an order of commencement of his probation that under Rule 23(2) of Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, the temporary employees are not eligible unearned leave on Medical Certificate that he was recommended for the sanction of leave without allowances and that he was sanctioned leave on loss of Pay for a period of 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994 in Tiruvannamalai Personal Assistant's (G) Proceedings No.K.Dis (A3) 62154/94, dated 06.10.1994. In this circumstances, the services of the petitioner were not regularized up to July 1994 as informed by the individual.13. The petitioner's mode of appointment was verified with reference to service records of the individual relevant Government orders issued regarding 10(a)(1) appointments, compassionate ground appointment regularisation of their service etc., the records produced by him, and the records received from the other offices. On verification of the above records, the following factors are came out into light:(i) A perusal of his Service Register Volume I at Page 5, a sentence “A candidate orders compassionate ground” is inserted above the original entries i.e., “appointed under 20/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's R.C.A3/162011/79 dated 15.02.1980” joined duty on the Forenoon of 21.02.1980.(ii) A perusal of his Service Register Volume II at Page No.8 the entries regarding his service regularisation w.e.f. 21.08.1980 forenoon, that the completion of his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982, with reference to the North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant (General)'s Proceedings No.D.Dis.17247/86 dated 30.06.1987 which was against the facts and the officer's signature who attested the above entries at page 8 entirely differs against the original signatures that found at page 9 volume II of his Service Register. His normal date of completion of probation should be on 20.08.1982 since services were regularised w.e.f. 21.08.1982 as per Service Register. But the Service Register entries were made that he has completed his probation period on the afternoon of 10.03.1982 where there was a shortfall of 5 months and 10 days i.e. before the completion of two years of service. Thus, he again managed to make fraudulent entries in official records.14. The services of all Temporary Personnel in the category of Junior Assistant, Typist and Steno Typist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial services etc. recruited through Employment Exchange under General Rule 10(a)(i) and who were in Temporary Service as on 25.06.1984, be regularised w.e.f. 25.06.1984, in the category and in the Department in which they are working vide G.O.Ms.No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984.15. In this particular case, the name of the petitioner was not find place in any of the list which was issued by the erstwhile North Arcot District Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector's proceedings in respect of temporary person whose services were regularised and declaration of probation ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.996 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984 who worked in erstwhile North Arcot District at that time. Hence, it was highly doubtful whether the petitioner worked even under 10(a)(i) category in North Arcot District.”21/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201421. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.22. No documents or records have been filed by the Petitioners to substantiate that the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by the then Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District vide Proceedings dated 15.02.1980 bearing Na.Ka.No.A3/160211/79 and the deceased Petitioner G.Murugan joined duty on 21.02.1980.23. There is some dispute surrounding the appointment of the deceased petitioner as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 15.02.1980 by the then District Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District. However, the onus is on the respondents to establish that the entry was a false one and was made by the petitioner. It is inconceivable that such an entry could have been made by the petitioner during his lifetime. Service Registers are always under the control of the Head of the Department. If a false entry was made in the Service Register, then the statements of the successive Head Officers should have been obtained, eliciting as to how such an entry was made and how it was allowed to 22/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014remain throughout the career of the petitioner.24. As per Fundamental Rule 74(v) and Rule 6 under Part-III of Annexure-II in Appendix-I of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authorities are required to maintain the Service Book in respect of each and every Government Servant. It is prescribed therein, among other things, that in the Service Book, every step in a Government Servant’s official life, such as temporary and officiating appointments, including promotions of all kinds, the date on which the period of probation is satisfactorily completed, increments, transfers, and leave of absence taken, should be regularly and concurrently recorded, each entry being duly verified with reference to the departmental orders, pay bills, leave statements, and attested by the Head of the Office. 25. Circular/Letter No.18522/FR-3(2)/2015-1 dated 21.05.2015, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government (Training), Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-III) Department, acknowledges that, upon checking the entries made in various Service Books regarding fixation of pay, it was found that in many cases the entries were not in chronological order; in some cases, they were insufficient; and in others, two different pay fixation entries existed for the same date without the earlier entry being cancelled or 23/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014superseded. Such discrepancies cause unnecessary delays in offering remarks on individual requests or departmental proposals, as the case may be, and also create difficulties for audit parties during inspections. To avoid such delays in the disposal of pay fixation or pay regulation requests by competent authorities, it has been emphasized that all entries in the Service Book must be neat, clear, and sufficient in all respects. 26. In the said Circular/Letter dated 21.05.2015, it has been clarified as under:“3. As there is no uniformity in making entries in the Service Books among the various departmental authorities, the following standard formats are prescribed with regard to 'Maintenance of Service Registers in accordance with Rule 74(iv) and rule 6 under Part-III of Annexure-II in Appendix-I of the Fundamental Rules, so as to maintain the records of service, in full.4. All the competent authorities in various Government Departments are directed to maintain the entries in the Service Books of the individuals under their control, in the prescribed standard format annexed to this guidelines, for effective maintenance of Records of Service, uniformly in all the Government Departments, including Secretariat Departments.”27. As far as the maintenance of Service Registers are concerned, it is for the Head of the Department to maintain the same as per G.O.Ms.No.114, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments (RE4-2) Department dated 24/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201403.09.2020. Also, it has been stated that the Service Registers will be maintained by the Head of the Department and it is for the individual employee to verify it once in 3 years to make corrections if any mistake in the entry. 28. Under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, there are also certain discrepancies surrounding the community declared and found in the Service Register as also the date of the death of the deceased Petitioner.29. As mentioned earlier in the facts narrated, the deceased Petitioner was dismissed from service by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District vide Proceedings dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000. This was after a detailed inquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity to the deceased Petitioner to produce the following documents:-Sl.No.Required Documents1.First Appointment Order issued by the Collector of North Arcot District.2.Service Registration Order in the cadre of Junior Assistant.3.Probation Completion Order.4.Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School in which he was last studied.5.S.S.L.C Mark List.25/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201430. Merely because the deceased Petitioner was unable to produce the same terminating from service with immediate effect was not justified. This was successfully challenged by the deceased Petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005. By an Order dated 01.11.2010, this Court had set aside the aforesaid Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000, passed by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District.31. It is pursuant to the aforesaid Order, a fresh Charge Memo was issued to the deceased Petitioner on 02.03.2011. In the Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011, the following charges were framed against the deceased Petitioner:-TamilEnglishFw;wr;rhl;L?1jpU/$p/KUfd; 24/01/2003 md;W jpUtz;zhkiy tl;lhr;rpaUf;F rhjpr;rhd;W bgw bfhLj;Jf; bfhz;l kDtpy; ,e;J?bjhG ntshsh; vd bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ mjd;nghpy; fpuhk eph;thf mYtyuhy; ,e;J?bjhG ntshsh; vd ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gl;L jpUtz;zhkiy kz;ly Jiztl;lhr;rpah; rhd;W vz;/ep/K/($p2)63-2003. ehs; 06/02/2003?y; (rhjpr;rhd;W ml;il vz;/4988780) tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Charge-1The Petitioner has given false information regarding caste, he belonged to Hindu Thuluva Vellalar but in the service record it is mentioned as “Vanniar”. Thus, violated Rule 20(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.26/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishvdnt jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gth; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;l tFg;gpidr; nrh;e;j bjhG ntshsh; ,dj;jpidr;– nrh;e;jtuhf ,Ue;Jk;. jdJ gzpg;gjpntl;oy; bgha;ahf ,e;J ? td;dpah; vd jtwhf gjpt[fis nkw;bfhz;Ls;sjd; K:yk; jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973 tpjp 20(1)(2)?I kPwpa[s;shh;/Fw;wr;rhl;L?2jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gtuJ gzpg;gjpntl;oid ghprPyid bra;jjpy; gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?1. gf;fk; 5?y; appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) as per North Arcot Collector's Rc.A3/162011/79, dated 15.02.1980 vd;w mry; thrfj;jpw;F ,ilna A candidate orders compassionate ground vd;w thrfk; ,ilr;brUfy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?2 gf;fk; 8?y; tlhw;fhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; neh;Kf cjtpahsh; (bghJ) mth;fspd; bray;Kiwfs; vz;/g/K/17247-86. ehs; 30/06/1987?d;go 21/08/1980 Kw;gfy; Kjy; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;ljhft[k;. jFjpfhz;gUtj;jpid 10/03/1982?y; Kof;fg;gl;ljhft[k; gjpt[fs; cs;sd/ ,g;gjpt[fSf;F xg;gkpl;Ls;s Charge-2There were no records in the Office relating to the regularization of the Petitioner's temporary service and declaration of probation, but there were entries regarding it in the service record. Therefore, the Petitioner was responsible for the false entries and committed misconduct under Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.27/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishmYtyhpd; ifbahg;gkhdJ. gzpg;gjpntL bjhFjp?2 gf;fk; 9?y; ,lk;bgw;Ws;s mYtyhpd; mry; xg;gj;Jld; ntWgl;L fhzg;gLfpwJ/ gzpg;gjpntl;oy; fhzg;gLk; gjpt[fspd;go jdpauJ gzp 21/08/1982 md;W tud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;L ,Uf;Fnkahdhy;. jdpah; ,ay;ghf jFjpfhz;gUtk; Kof;f ntz;oa ehs; 20/08/1982 gpw;gfy; MFk;/ Mdhy; gzpg;gjpntl;oy; 10/03/1982 gpw;gfYld; jFjpfhz; gUtj;jpid epiwt[ bra;jjhf 2 tUl';fSf;F Fiwthf. 5 khjk; 10 ehl;fs; Kd;djhfnt epiwt[ bra;jjhf gjpt[fs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. ,th; mYtyf Mtz';fspy; bgha;ahd gjpt[fis nkw;bfhz;Ls;sjd; jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; elj;ij tpjpfs; 1973 tpjp 20(3)(i)?I kPwpa[s;shh;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L?3jpU/$p/KUfd; vd;gtiu fPH;f;fz;l mry; rhd;Wfis 28/02/2005 md;W jpUtz;zhkiy khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; neh;Kf cjtpahsh; (bghJ) mth;fsplk; M$h;gLj;j nfhug;gl;lJ/1)tlhw;fhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytuhy; tH';fg;gl;l Charge-3The Petitioner failed to produce the Original Appointment Order, Regularisation Order and Declaration of Probation Order, Transfer Certificate, S.S.L.C Mark List, despite being provided several opportunities. Therefore, committed misconduct under Rule 20(1)(2) and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. 28/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014TamilEnglishKjy; gzpepakd Miz mry;2),sepiy cjtpahsh; epiyapy; gzptud;Kiw bra;ag;gl;l cj;jput[3)jFjpfhz;gUtk; epiwt[ bra;J cj;jputplg;gl;l cj;jput[4)gs;sp khw;Wr;rhd;wpjH; mry; (SSLC)5)kjpg;bgz; gl;oay; (SSLC) 32. The aforesaid Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 culminated in the Impugned Proceedings/Impugned Order dated 21.07.2014, dismissing the Petitioner from service on 21.07.2014 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000. Operative portion of which has been already extracted in the beginning of this order. 33. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner died on 04.07.2024, after he was dismissed from service on 21.07.2014 by the Respondent. 34. In the application filed for impleading the Legal Representatives of the deceased Petitioner in W.M.P.No.39373 of 2024, a copy of the Death Certificate of the deceased Petitioner was issued by the Chennai Corporation, 29/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Department of Public Health Department dated 26.07.2024 and the Legal Heir Certificate was issued by the Tahsildar on 11.09.2024 bearing Certificate No.7202408292493. 35. The age of the deceased Petitioner's father has been given as 96 years, however, it is not clear how and why the age has been given as 96 years if the deceased Petitioner's father had already pre-deceased him and had died on 01.08.1972. 36. If the age of the father of the deceased Petitioner was 96 years on the date of issuance of the Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.09.2024, the deceased Petitioner's father would have been born in the year 1928. If the deceased Petitioner's father was born in the year 1928 and had died on 01.08.1972, on the said date i.e., 01.08.1972, the deceased Petitioner's father's age would have been 44 years.37. In the 1st Termination Order dated 14.10.2005, which has been set aside by this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010 in W.P.No.35094 of 2005, the deceased Petitioner's father Late Mr.V.Govindasamy was said to have been working as a Jeep Driver in the Revenue Department of South Arcot District 30/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014and that the deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 15.02.1980 under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules on compassionate grounds. 38. According to the deceased Petitioner, the deceased Petitioner's services were regularized on 21.08.1980 with retrospective effect from 21.02.1980 being the date on which, the deceased Petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Junior Assistant in North Arcot Ambedkar District. 39. The deceased Petitioner was appointed as a Special Revenue Inspector (Junior Assistant Cadre) in the Office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Chengam on temporary basis.40. One of the crucial date that is relevant for the present case is the bifurcation of the North Arcot District by Government Order dated 30.09.1989. After the said date, the North Arcot District was bifurcated into 2 Districts as North Arcot Ambedkar District into Vellore District and Tiruvannamalai District. 41. Even after the aforesaid bifurcation, the deceased Petitioner continued 31/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014to work as Special Revenue Inspector (Junior Assistant Cadre), Office of the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.), Chengam and continued to draw the periodical increments such as Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate in a routine manner. This is evident from a reading of Paragraph 2 of the Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 which was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005 vide its order dated 01.11.2010. 42. However, in the Counter Affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition, it has also been confirmed in Paragraph 2 of the Counter Affidavit that periodical increments such as Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate were sanctioned to the deceased Petitioner in a routine manner and that the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District, had requested to refer the matter to the Collector of North Arcot District to have a check of the matters and send a report in connection with the regularisation of the services of the deceased Petitioner. 43. It is stated that in response to the same, the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai District submitted a report on 22.09.2004 to state that the deceased Petitioner has stayed away from duty and applied for Unearned Leave on Medical 32/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Certificate for 30 days from 01.09.1994 to 30.09.1994. It is further stated that the services of the deceased Petitioner were not regularized by an Order of commencement of probation under Rule 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules, 1933 and therefore as a temporary employee, the deceased Petitioner was not eligible for Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate and that he has recommended for sanction of leave without allowances and that the aforesaid 30 days leave was on loss of pay for the period between 01.09.1994 and 30.09.1994 which was sanctioned by the Tiruvannamalai District Collector's Personal Assistant Proceedings dated 06.10.1994 bearing No.K.Dis(A3)62154/1994. Therefore, it has been stated that the services of the deceased Petitioner were not regularized up to July 1994. 44. It is not clear as to how the appointment of the deceased Petitioner can be questioned after he was allowed to leave on loss of pay and was allowed to avail Earned Leave, Unearned Leave, Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate earlier and all of a sudden, treated the deceased Petitioner as a temporary employee in the year 1984. It is also not clear how and why the deceased Petitioner was allowed to work as a temporary employee for a periodically long period since 15.02.1980. 33/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201445. The burden of proof clearly lies on the Department. The officers who had signed the service entries were not examined. The petitioner is not bound to prove his innocence regarding the alleged manipulation of the Service Register, as the Service Register is never accessible to any employee, much less to anyone who is not an employee. It is highly inconceivable that the petitioner could have manipulated the Service Register even before he entered into service. The Service Register may or may not have been manipulated by the then Head of the Department and other officers who were stationed at the headquarters when the office was located within the North Arcot Ambedkar District, which subsequently came to be substituted by the Thiruvannamalai District. 46. In this case, the deceased Petitioner has not expressed any doubt regarding his status as a permanent employee of the Respondent since his appointment on 15.02.1980. In fact, it is the case of the deceased Petitioner that his services were regularized as early as 21.08.1980 with retrospective effect from the date of appointment after completion of 6 months of service and thereafter he was on probation. 47. It is the further case of the deceased Petitioner that he completed the 34/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014probation period of 2 years but his probation was not declared since he was not sent for basic training for the post of Junior Assistant which was required for declaration of probation. 48. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.996, Personal and Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 22.09.1984 was issued for regularisation of services of the temporary personnel recruited under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and who were in temporary service as on 25.06.1984 with effect from 25.06.1984. However, the deceased Petitioner's name was not there in the list prepared by the then North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant in respect of temporary persons whose services were regularized pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order. 49. In this background, the deceased Petitioner had also sent a Representation to the North Arcot District Collector for basic training to the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to which the then North Arcot District Collector's Personal Assistant recommended the name of the deceased Petitioner along with 9 others for being sent to training to the Civil Service Training Institute in Bhavanisagar, Erode District vide Proceedings dated 07.05.1986 bearing Ref.Na.Ka.No.A3/17247/86. 35/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201450. Relevant portion of the aforesaid Proceedings dated 07.05.1986 reads as under:- “Miz:-gthdprhfh; muR mYtyh; gapw;rp ikaj;jpy; jkpH;ehL mikr;Rg;gzpj;njh;thizf;FGtpduhy; 1974?k; Mz;ow;Fk; 1976?k; Mz;ow;Fk; ,ilapy; elj;jg;gl;l njh;tpy; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fSf;Fk;. fUiz mog;gilapy; epakdk; bgw;w ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fSf;Fkhd 47?tJ gapw;rp mzp 21/5/86 Kjy; 30/7/86 tiuapy; nkw;bfhs;sg;gltpUf;fpwJ/ nkw;go gapw;rpf;F ,t;tUtha; myfpy; gzpg[hpa[k; fUizapd; mog;gilapy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fs; - jkpH;ehL njh;thizf;FGtpduhy; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;l ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fspy; jyh Ie;J tPjk; fPH;f;fz;l 10 (gj;J) egh;fis mDg;gg;gLfpd;wd/fUizapd; mog;gilapy;:1/ jpU/ nfh/KUfd;. ,sepiy cjtpahsh;. jhYf;fh mYtyfk;. JpUtz;zhkiy/2/ /////3/ /////4/ /////5/ /////jkpH;ehL njh;thizak; K:yk; bjhpe;bjLf;fg;gl;lth;fs;;:6 ////7 /////8 /////9 /////10 /////2) nkw;go ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fis 20/5/86 md;W gpw;gfy; 2/00 kzpf;F nkw;go gapw;rp epiyaj;jpy; nrUtjw;F 36/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014VJthf xU ehs Kd;djhf gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gLkhW rk;ke;jg;gl;l rhh;epiy mYtyh;fs; nfhug;gLfpwhh;fs;/3) rk;ke;jg;gl;l egh;fs; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;l njjpapid ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F bjhptpf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/4) nkw;go egh;fsplkpUe;J ghh;itapy; fhdDk; fojj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sJ nghy; xg;ge;jg;gj;jpuj;jpidg;bgw;W ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gp itg;gJld; nkw;go egh;fs; gapw;rpf;F mDg;gg;gLk;tiu elg;g[ Mz;oy; vLj;jpUf;Fk; jw;bray; tpLg;g[ tptuj;ija[k; gthdprhfh; Kjy;tUf;Fk;. ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;Fk; jtwhJ mDg;gp itf;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/5) nkw;go egh;fSf;F mth;fs; gzpapypUe;J tpLtpf;fg;gLk; Kd;dnu nghJkhd nghf;Ftuj;J bryt[ Kd;gzk; tH';f ntz;oaJ/ ,jDld; ghh;itf;fojk; kw;Wk; ml;ltiza[k; mDg;gp itf;fg;gLfpwJ/”51. Thus, there is no dispute that the deceased Petitioner was indeed recommended for being sent for basic training to the Civil Service Training Institute in Bhavanisagar, Erode District. 52. Having extracted the work of the Petitioner since the date of joining on 21.02.1980, it is not open for the Respondent to state that the deceased Petitioner was not appointed and that there were manipulation in the Service Registers maintained by the Respondent by inserting / by fabricating the records 37/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014by making it seem as the Petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant under Rule 10(a)(i) of Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Further, having extracted the work since 1980, it is not open for the Respondent to terminate the services of the deceased Petitioner either at the 1st instance on 14.10.2005 or thereafter vide impugned Proceedings dated 21.07.2014. 53. The only difficulty that arises is on account of the failure of the deceased Petitioner to produce the documents which were called for by the Respondent. However, this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010, set aside the Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000, passed by the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai District. 54. Pursuant to Order dated 01.11.2010, a fresh Charge Memo was issued to the deceased Petitioner on 02.03.2011 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The deceased Petitioner has clearly stated that the deceased Petitioner joined in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mambazhapattu, Villupuram District during the years 1973-1974 by producing the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Arakandanallur where the deceased Petitioner studied during the years 1971-1972 and 1972-1973.38/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201455. It must be recalled that during the period when the deceased Petitioner studied in the School and till 1989, there was a common reservation for the persons belonging to Backward Class (BC), Most Backward Class (MBC) Community. In fact, there was no distinction between the aforesaid 2 classes. 56. The reservations were based on quotas for Non-Brahmins, Brahmins and Harijans, Anglo-Indians, Indian Christians and Muslims. 57. Only in the year 1989, after the implementation of Mandal Commission, such reservations for Most Backward Classes (MBC) was made and therefore merely because the School Records indicating that the deceased Petitioner belonged to Vanniyar Community in the era when there was no benefit accruing to a person belonging to Vanniyar Community cannot be put against the deceased Petitioner either based on the School Records or at the time of his appointment into service by the Respondent under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 58. That apart, the appointment of the deceased Petitioner is said to have 39/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014been made on compassionate ground after the death of his father on 01.08.1972 who was working as a Jeep Driver in the Revenue Department of South Arcot District. 59. As far as the 2nd Charge in the Charge Memo dated 02.03.2011 that there were no records in the office relating to regularization of the deceased Petitioner's temporary service but there were entries recorded in the Service Registers and that the deceased Petitioner was responsible for making false entries and committed misconduct under Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. There is no iota of evidence to substantiate the same as the Respondent has not brought any evidence to show that the Service Register was indeed tampered by the deceased Petitioner. 60. As mentioned elsewhere, the Service Registers are maintained by the Head Office and if there was indeed fabrication of the Service Registers by the deceased Petitioner, the deceased Petitioner ought to have been criminally prosecuted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 61. The failure on the part of the deceased Petitioner to produce the Original Appointment Order and Regularisation Order and therefore committed 40/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014misconduct under Rule 20(1) and (2) and Rule 20(3)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, though may give an inference that the deceased Petitioner was not a permanent employee of the Respondent, it cannot be countenanced, as the deceased Petitioner was drawing regular salary against the sanctioned post from the year 1980 after his initial appointment on 15.02.1980. 62. Only in the year 1994, there were issues raised by the Respondent against the deceased Petitioner which led to the initiation of Termination Order dated 14.10.2005 bearing Ref.No.A3/4728/2000 which was set aside by this Court vide Order dated 01.11.2010.63. No doubt, there are few inherent weakness as far as the deceased Petitioner is concerned inasmuch as the deceased Petitioner could not produce any document called for earlier by the Respondent.64. The fact remains that the deceased Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and continued to be in service till his termination on 14.10.2005 earlier and thereafter till 21.07.2024 pursuant to Order dated 01.11.2010 of the Writ Court in W.P.No.35094 of 2005.41/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 201465. The fact that a recommendation was made to send the deceased Petitioner for basic training for probation on 07.05.1986 is not in dispute. If the deceased Petitioner had not completed probation, the deceased Petitioner's service should have been terminated then and there. Instead, the deceased Petitioner was allowed to continue and the issue was raked up only in the year 1994 for the first time when the deceased Petitioner appears to have applied for Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate between 01.09.1994 and 30.09.1994 for a period of 30 days. 66. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that even if the probation was not declared as has been stated by the Respondent, there is no justification on the part of the Respondent to have continued the deceased Petitioner in service contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 67. In fact, the Respondent as a Model Employer ought to have exercised the power under Rule 23(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules regularizing the services of the deceased Petitioner. There are also no indication that the aforesaid exercise was made and the deceased 42/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014Petitioner was discharged from service earlier in terms of Rule 26(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 68. To explain further, Rule 26(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as under:-“26.Termination or extension of probation - (a) Where the special rules of any service prescribe a period of probation for appointment as a full member of the service, or where such period of probation has been extended under General Rule 28, the appointing authority may, at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation or the extended period of probation, as the case may be— (i) discharge a probationer from the service for want of a vacancy; or (ii) at its discretion, by order, either extend the period of probation of the probationer in case the probation has not been extended under General Rule 28 or terminate his probation and discharge him from service after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed termination of probation; Provided that where a probationer has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the imposition on him of any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings a tentative conclusion is arrived as to terminate his probation, a further opportunity of showing cause specifically against termination of his probation need not be given to him. Explanation - An opportunity to show cause may be given after the appointing authority arrives at a provisional conclusion 43/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014on the suitability or otherwise of the probationer for full membership of the service, either by such authority himself or by a subordinate authority who is superior in rank to the probationer. (b) .......”69. That apart, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 cannot apply to a person who was never been regularized. It applies to every member of Civil Service of the State and every person holding civil post under the State. In this connection, Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 is reproduced below:-“2. They shall apply to every member of the Civil Service of the State and to every person holding a civil post under the State except to the extent otherwise expressly provided:- i.by or under any law for the time being in force or in any rule; ii.in respect of any such member by contract or agreement subsisting between such member or person and the Government. Explanation.- A member of the civil service of the State and every person holding a civil post under the State whose services are placed at the disposal of any company, corporation, organization or local authority shall, for the purpose of these rules, be deemed to be a member of such civil service or be deemed to hold such civil post, notwithstanding that his salary is drawn from a source other than the Consolidated Fund of the State.” 70. The deceased Petitioner does not fall within the exceptions provided 44/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014in Sub-Clause (i) and Sub-Clause (ii) to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The fact that Charge Memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 on 02.03.2011 itself indicates that the deceased Petitioner was a regular employee of the Respondent and therefore the charges framed against him are inconsistent and the very basis on which the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the deceased Petitioner. 71. Therefore, on this count also, the Impugned Proceeding/Order dated 21.07.2014 bearing No.A3/4728/2000, issued by the Respondent is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.72. Consequently, the Respondent is directed to treat the period from the date of termination of the service of the deceased Petitioner from 21.07.2014 to the actual date of superannuation as the deceased Petitioner been in service without monetary benefits/without actual pay. 73. Since the deceased Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and continued to be in service till his termination on 14.10.2005 earlier and thereafter till 21.07.2024, the deceased Petitioner shall be entitled to all the 45/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014attendant benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity etc., and other mandatory benefits together with regular pension from the date of superannuation till the date of his death on 04.07.2024. 74. There is no question of denying any of the service benefits of the deceased Petitioner or his dependents in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 75. Therefore, Wife of the deceased Petitioner namely Mrs.M.Anandayi, shall be eligible for family pension in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 76. The above exercise shall be carried out by the Respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 77. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. However, liberty is given to the respondent to examine the records as to who had allegedly manipulated the service register and to take steps to prosecute the persons involved. No costs. 46/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014 09.07.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking Order / No Speaking Ordermrr/arb/jenTo:The District Collector,Thiruvannamalai District,Thiruvannamalai.C.SARAVANAN, J.mrr/arb/jen47/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26243 of 2014W.P.No.26243 of 201409.07.202548/48