AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner seeks the writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the order, dated 21.10.2005, vide which the services of the Petitioner has been ordered to be terminated.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the posts of part time Village Officers were abolished by Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1981, with effect from 14.11.1980.
The erstwhile Village Officers challenged the validity of the said Act, before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. During the hearing of the petition, a memo was filed by the State Government stating, that all the Ex-Village Officers, who possess minimum general educational qualification, as on 20.02.1982 will be given an appointment through the Screening Committee against the newly created post of Village Administrative Officer.
In pursuant to the memo filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, a District Level Screening Committee, and the State Level Screening Committees were constituted for selecting eligible Ex-Village Officer, who lost service on 14.11.1980 due to abolition of the post of Village Officer.
The State Government also issued a Government Order, giving powers to the Collectors of all the Districts to appoint Ex-Village Officers temporarily as Village Administrative Officers, on being sponsored through the Employment Exchange under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the General Rules, subject to certain conditions. Concurrence was also obtained from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for appointment of 1438 Ex-Village Officers, who have passed S.S.L.C after 20.02.1982 till 1988-1989. The monetary benefit was given to the persons on availability of those vacancies. Thereafter, the Ex-Village Officer, who passed SSLC after 1988-1989 were also directed to be given appointment.
It is seen, that some of the temporary Village Officers, who worked as temporary basis prior to 14.11.1980 approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for appointment as Village Administrative Officers. The learned Tribunal accepted their plea and issued certain directions, with which we are not concerned for the present.
The Petitioner being the part-time Ex-Village Officer, was selected for the post of Village Administrative Officer. In view of the qualification of SSLC, the temporary appointment of the Petitioner made on July 1981.
The temporary appointment was placed before the screening committee for regularization of the services of the Petitioner as Village Administrative Officer. On verification, it was found that SSLC certificate submitted by the Petitioner was a forged document.
Consequently, his service was ordered to be terminated, by way of impugned order.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that a reading of order would show that it is stigmatic in nature. Though, the order is simpliciter order of termination, but in fact, the motive of passing this order is the alleged misconduct of having filed for forged SSLC certificate.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore is that without issuing notice and holding an enquiry it is not permissible to terminate the services of the Petitioner.
On consideration, I find No. force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
It is well settled law, that whenever the appointment has taken by fraud, by production of forged document, the services are liable to be dismissed forthwith. In such situation, it is not open to the Petitioner to claim the compliance of principles of natural justice, unless and until, the Petitioner is able to show the primafacie that the allegations of forgery are not correct, or he has a primafacie plausible defence. In absence the settled law that fraud vitiates everything comes into play.
In the case in hand, except the pleading SSLC certificate is a genuine, No. material has been placed on record. The action taken by the Respondents in terminating the services of the Petitioner, is in consonance with the settled law, that person guilty of fraud is not entitled to continue the service. Further more, person guilty of forgery is not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No. costs.