WA/52/2024 of THE CHAIRMAN Vs D. JAGADEESH KUMAR on 21 August 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan J.) The respondent in the Writ Petition has filed the present Writ Appeal as against the order dated 23.06.2023 passed in WP.No.16593 of 2018.

2. The Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent in No.MEE/E4/1429/2018/MM dated 26.06.2018 and to direct the respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service as a confirmed employee and to pay the monetary benefits and other service benefits applicable to the regular/permanent employee of the Chennai Port Trust.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Material Manager with the respondent Port Trust in the year 2016. At the time of his appointment, he was found to be qualified, subjected himself to medical examination besides produced all necessary documents. The Writ Petitioner was initially placed on probation for a period of two years, commencing from 27.06.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had submitted an experience certificate from his former employer M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Limited dated 08.12.2015 along with another previous employer M/s.Peevee Precision Works Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. While serving with the respondent Port Trust, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 16.06.2018. The notice alleged that he had produced a fake experience certificate dated 07.12.2015 from M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Chennai. The petitioner gave a reply to the notice asserting that his terms with his former employer, M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. was not very smooth, thereby raised the possibility that the former employer provided a negative verification out of vengeance. Despite his explanation, the respondent issued a termination order.

4. The respondent Port Trust filed a detailed counter contending that the appointment of the writ petitioner was provisional and strictly subject to the verification of his credentials. Upon verifying the documents, the appellant issued the show cause notice based on the written clarification received from the former employer who had purportedly issued the experience certificate. Therefore, the impugned termination order was passed in accordance with the law, and there is absolutely no necessity for judicial interference.

5. In paragraph 14 of the impugned order, the Writ Court has held as follows: “14. ..... In any event, the respondent Port Trust ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his explanation to the show cause notice by way of holding a fair enquiry. Admittedly, the respondent has not conducted any enquiry and without affording any opportunity, has terminated the petitioner”.

6. We heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondent.

7. In the recruitment notification issued by the appellant Port Trust inviting applications for the post of Assistant Materials Manager Gr.I, the prescribed qualifications were stipulated as follows: Essential - Degree or equivalent in Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from a recognised university /institution Desirable - i) Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Materials Managements from recognized university/institution.

ii) Two years post qualification experience in Materials Management in an Industrial/Commercial/Government Undertaking.

8. Column No. 9(ii) of the application proforma for the aforementioned post clearly states as follows: “9. Qualification & Experience

ii. Whether you have the qualifications prescribed for the post and possess the necessary experience etc. As required in the notification (attach attested copy of proof thereof).

9. Clauses 7 and 8 of the General Instructions in the aforementioned notification, which pertain to the requirement of experience certificates, read as follows; “7. Certificate in support of experience should be in proper format i.e. it should be on the Organisation's letter head, bear the date of issue, specific period of work, name, designation, scale of pay and signature of the Administrative Authority / Owner of the organization along with his / her seal, if already employed.

8. The Trust shall verify the antecedents or documents submitted by a candidate at any time at the time of appointment or during the tenure of the service rendered. In case, it is detected that the documents submitted by the candidates are fake or the candidate has clandestine antecedents /background and has suppressed the said information, then his / her service shall be liable to be terminated.”

10. From the aforementioned conditions, it is evident that a valid experience certificate constitutes an essential qualification for the post. The writ petitioner was issued an appointment order dated 15.06.2016, wherein Serial No. 9 explicitly stipulated that “ If he is found to have knowingly furnished any particulars which are false or suppressed material information of character, which if known would ordinarily have debarred him from getting an appointment to a grade or post, is liable to be disqualified and if appointed, to be dismissed from service.”

11. Following the issuance of the appointment order, the experience certificate was forwarded to the concerned former employer for verification. The said employer informed the appellant that the certificate in question was neither issued by the company nor signed by the designated official, Shri.S.Arul, Deputy General Manager (IR). It was solely on the basis of this adverse verification report that the show-cause notice was issued, subsequently leading to the petitioner's dismissal from service.

12. The counsel for the respondent submitted that no opportunity was given to the respondent to substantiate his case and the order of dismissal was issued straight away without conducting a proper enquiry.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 3 SCC 607 and 1984 19 SCC 639 and argued that the principle of natural justice is not followed in the present case on hand.

14. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner/respondent herein was appointed provisionally for a period of two years, subject to the verification of his credentials. When the writ petitioner produced the experience certificate for the purpose of securing employment, he must be deemed to have been aware that the document would be forwarded for verification to the issuing authority. Upon forwarding the document to the purported employer from whom the petitioner claimed to have obtained it, the said employer categorically replied that the certificate had not been issued by them.

15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that, in both the cases, at the time of probation, termination order was issued without giving opportunity to the respondent and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the principle of natural justice requires a proper enquiry before the termination order was issued. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the order of appointment is itself subject to the verification of documents and the appointment order was cancelled due to the adverse report received in the verification of documents. It is not the case of the respondent that verification have not done properly but he claims that he does not have good term with the earlier employer who issued the certificate. In view of the same, the judgments relied upon by the respondent, is not applicable to the facts of this case.

16. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the appellant failed to conduct the verification process properly; rather, the writ petitioner merely asserts that his relationship with his former employer was not cordial. The appellant cannot be expected to conduct a roving inquiry in matters of this nature, particularly when the appointment was explicitly provisional and subject to document verification. Once the document was verified and found as non- genuine, the only recourse available to the appellant was to issue an order of dismissal (cancellation of appointment). The writ petitioner has no right to claim that there was no proper enquiry or an opportunity was not given to him.

17. Though the counsel for the respondent in the Writ Appeal argued that the Chennai Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1987, prescribes procedures for taking action, namely disciplinary proceedings, and relied upon Regulations 9 and 12, so far as Regulations 9 and 12 are concerned, they are not applicable to the present facts of the case since the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent was strictly subject to the verification of documents.

18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are interfering with the order of the Writ Court.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 Judgment made in WA No. 52 of 2024 02-09-2026