AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides.
All the three Writ petitions were filed by the three employees of the 2nd Respondent Cooperative Society. All the three Petitioners were working as Salesmen in the said Society. On complaint being received about the genuineness of the educational certificates produced by them, an enquiry u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, was ordered to be conducted. Even when the enquiry was pending, charge memos were issued to the Petitioners and subsequently, the three Petitioners were dismissed from service on 29.03.2007 producing false educational certificates vide charge memo dated 22.11.2006. In respect of G. Alagarsamy, (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1572 of 2008) the charge memo dated is 21.11.2006. In respect of K. Muniyasamy, (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1588 of 2008) the charge memo dated 22.11.2006. In respect of S. Nagarajan, (Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No. 1630 of 2008). As against the dismissal, all the three Writ Petitioners filed revision applications u/s 153 before the first Respondent, the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority by three separate orders dated 26.12.2007, dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the orders of the 2nd Respondent Cooperative Society. In these Writ petitions they are challenging the orders passed by the Revisional Authority.
Notice was ordered in these Writ petitions. On notice from this Court, the 2nd Respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in each of the Writ petitions together with supporting documents in the form of typed sets.
The first Writ Petitioner (G. Alagarsamy) in W.P.(MD) No. 1572 of 2008, the case of the Respondent Society was that he studied only upto 5th standard in the C.S.I. Primary School at Pampatti Village, Virudhunagar District, from 1971-1972 to 1976-1977. But thereafter, he claimed that he had studied upto 8th standard in Vivekananthar High School at Devakottai. The claim of the Petitioner was that at the time of joining duty, he only gave genuine educational certificate and he was not responsible for the subsequent certificate given by him. In the enquiry held u/s 81, the Petitioner had produced a new educational certificate. The Deputy Registrar, Madurai Circle made an enquiry with reference to the claim made by the workman for regularisation and at that stage, it was found that the certificate produced by the Petitioner was not genuine.
Similarly in the second Writ Petitioner (K. Muniasamy) in W.P.(MD) No. 1588 of 2008, the stand of the Respondent Society was that the Petitioner actually studied in Madurai Kelapettai Nadar Uravinmurai Dr. D. Thirugnanam High School from 1964-1969 at Madurai upto 7th standard. But the certificate that he had studied upto 8th standard in the Vathalagundu C.S.I. Upper Primary School, was not given by him, was not accepted by the Revisional Authority.
The third Writ Petitioner (S. Nagarajan) in W.P.(MD) No. 1630 of 2008 originally claimed that he had studied upto 5th standard in Erumaikulam Primary School, Kamuthi upto 5th standard but thereafter, he has produced a certificate as if he had studied upto 9th standard obtained from Kottaimedu High School.
In all the three Writ petitions, the stand of the Petitioners was that they never furnished the new educational certificate. Whatever given by them were genuine certificates. An enquiry was directed to be held against the conduct of the Petitioner. In the enquiry, it was held that for the post of Helper/Packer, the educational qualification is only 8th standard. But the post for Salesman, 10th standard is the educational qualification prescribed. Since the Petitioners have claimed regularisation and when their claims were considered, the proceedings u/s 81 was initiated and it is during that proceedings, it was found that the Petitioners'' certificates were false. Before the Revisional Authority, the Petitioners contended that an enquiry cannot be conducted by the said authority. The Society ought to have waited for the final report u/s 81. The report received from the respective educational institutions cannot be taken as basis. All the three contentions raised were squarely rejected by the Revisional Authority. He held that there is no impediment for the Society is ordering the enquiries and take disciplinary action to find out the genuineness of the education certificates produced by them. The contention that they should wait for the final report u/s 81, cannot be accepted.
It is also found that it was the Petitioners with a view to get their service regularisation in the post of Salesman, had produced bogus educational certificates and there is no reason for anybody else to produce such a certificate on behalf of the Petitioners.
The Supreme Court vide judgment in State of Manipur and Others Vs. Y. Token Singh and Others, has held that in case of securing fake employment, the question of observing, principles of natural justice will not arise.
In the present case, admittedly under Rule 149(1) in the bylaws framed, the Petitioners should possess qualifications prescribed and when the Petitioners had produced such bogus certificates, they cannot turn back and contend such certificates were not produced by them. The Petitioners a definite stand that the certificates got included by somebody else is not believable. They never established the same in the domestic enquiry. The only objection raised before the authority was rejected in the revision application. In the absence of the Petitioners proving that they have the requisite educational qualification, the request for regularisation also cannot be considered in the light of the Full Bench judgment passed by this Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Dindigul reported in 2007(4) LW 805.
Under these circumstances, there is no case made out by the Petitioners to interdict the well considered impugned orders passed by the Revisional Authority. Hence, all the Writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.