WA/2904/2023 of THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs S.RADHAKRISHNAN on 2 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful respondents in the writ petition are the appellants in this Writ Appeal.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in W.P.No.12317 of 2010 dated 09.01.2023.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of dismissal issued by the second respondent dated 21.05.2007 and the consequential order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.24225/2015/K3 dated 29.02.2016 and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed as Office Assistant on compassionate ground on 12.11.1991 in the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri. He joined service on 15.11.1991 and thereafter, was promoted as Junior Assistant on 21.01.1994. Since the minimum qualification

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

for the post of Junior Assistant is S.S.L.C., the proposal was sent to the Government for the purpose of regularisation in the cadre of Junior Assistant. In turn, the Government forwarded the S.S.L.C. certificate for verification and by letter dated 17.07.2003, the State Board of School Examinations sent a communication that the said certificate was bogus. On the basis of the said communication, charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed and charge memo was issued on 23.03.2004. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges and after enquiry, a second show cause notice was issued regarding the punishment. After receipt of the explanation, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.05.2007. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected on 29.02.2016.

5. The main contention of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that no opportunity was given to him during enquiry and the enquiry was conducted in a hasty manner. Further, the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was not properly considered.

6. On the other hand, the appellants herein, who are the respondents in the writ petition, contended that the minimum qualification for the post of Junior Assistant is S.S.L.C. and only for that reason, the certificate was sent for verification. After obtaining the report from the Secretary, State Board of School

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

Examinations, Chennai dated 17.07.2003, charges under Rule 17(b) were framed and punishment was imposed after following all legal procedures and after giving sufficient opportunity to the delinquent. The Writ Court, on the basis of the submissions, came to the conclusion that the department failed to establish the charges through oral and material evidence by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 and also on the ground that the information obtained by the writ petitioner is contrary to the report of the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations and there is no proper explanation for the same.

7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of notice served on the respondent, there was no representation on behalf of him. Therefore, the matter was decided based on the arguments advanced by the appellants and on the basis of the materials produced before the Writ Court by the respondents therein.

8. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition on two grounds, which are as follows:

i) The department has not established the charges against the delinquent;

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

ii) The information obtained by the delinquent through RTI Act was not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer, since the same is contrary to the report of the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations.

9. There is no dispute that the petitioner was originally appointed on 12.11.1991 as Office Assistant on compassionate ground in the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri. At that point of time, the petitioner had not completed S.S.L.C. When the petitioner got promotion as Junior Assistant on 21.01.1994, he had to comply with the qualification of S.S.L.C. Only because of the said requirement, he produced an S.S.L.C. certificate purported to have been issued by the State Board of School Examinations, Chennai. The appellants, in a routine manner, sent the certificate for verification of its genuineness. The Secretary, State Board of School Examinations, vide communication dated 17.07.2003, informed the appellants that the certificate was bogus.

10. For better appreciation, the scanned copies of the communication sent by the Secretary, State Schools Examination Board is as follows:

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

11. The said communication forwarded by the Secretary, State Schools Examination Board is twofold. Firstly, it confirms that the marks certificate of the petitioner under Registration No.105606/March 1981 is genuine. In the second part, the Secretary confirmed that the marks certificate submitted by the petitioner under Registration No.551966/April 1991 is fake. The relevant portion is extracted as below: S.No. Name Register No./Year Subjects Marks Total Tamil English Maths Science Social Science 1 S.Radhakrishnan 551966/April 1991 - 44 - 59 56 159 (Marks as per copy in fake mark certificate) As per these office documents the Register number has been allotted to another person.

12. The Secretary also referred the matter to the Police Department for taking necessary action and retained the bogus certificate. When there is no motive attributed against the School Education Department and especially when the Secretary, State Board of School Examinations categorically states that the document produced by the petitioner viz., S.S.L.C. certificate is not genuine, thereafter, the appellants framed charges and initiated disciplinary enquiry against the writ petitioner and passed an order of dismissal from service.

13. The judgment cited by the petitioner before the Writ Court is regarding production of documents before the Enquiry Officer and how it has to

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

be substantiated through oral evidence. The facts of the present case are slightly different, since the only authority who can vouch for the genuineness of the certificate is the State Board of School Examinations and the Secretary himself sent a communication stating that the certificate produced by the writ petitioner is a fake document. We feel that there is absolutely no necessity for production of further evidence. The Writ Court also found fault with the non-production of the certificate before the Enquiry Officer. We can safely come to the conclusion that once the bogus certificate was noticed by the concerned department, they would immediately seize the same and they will not allow the said bogus certificate for further circulation. The concerned department only initiates prosecution against the person who produced the bogus certificate.

14. In the present case, this procedure was fully followed and the appellants also submitted that a criminal case was initiated against the writ petitioner. The charge of producing a bogus certificate is serious in nature and the respondent is also facing criminal prosecution. Whether the finding in the criminal prosecution is in favour of the respondent or not, the appellants have independent jurisdiction to take disciplinary action, especially when the issuing authority of the certificate has categorically stated that the certificate was bogus.

15. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. When the petitioner tying to secure promotion or qualification status by

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

submitting forged or fraudulent documents, the very foundation of such promotion is void ab initio. No employee can claim an equitable right to remain in service or demand an elaborate procedural technicalities when the baseline qualification document itself is established to be bogus. Furthermore, departmental proceedings and criminal prosecutions operate in entirely different domains. The standards of proof, rules of evidence, and objectives of both proceedings are distinct. The outcome of a criminal case does not restrict the appellants from exercising their independent disciplinary jurisdiction. Since the issuing authority categorically disowned the certificate, the appellants were fully justified in passing the order of dismissal.

16. In view of the above said findings, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. Therefore, the order dated 09.01.2023 in W.P.No.12317 of 2010 is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )

WA No. 2904 of 2023

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli WA No. 2904 of 2023 09-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 07:44:10 pm )