[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Krishnakumar vs Engineer In Chief Wrd & on 6 March, 2026
W.P.No.7977 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 02.03.2026
Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.7977 of 2019
R.Krishnakumar ... Petitioner
vs
1. Engineer in Chief WRD &
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Chief Engineer, WRD
Public Works Department,
Coimbatore Region,
Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001.
3. The Deputy Superintending Engineer, WRD
O/o. The Superintending Engineer, PWD
Special Project Circle, Palani.
4. The Director,
Directorate of Government Examination,
DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
5. The Head Master,
P.S.G.Sarvajana Higher Secondary School,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004. … Respondents
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
W.P.No.7977 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second
respondent by proceedings in Aa 1 (2)/2599/2012 dated 29.01.2019 and quash the
same and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasen Fizal
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3
: Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General Assisted by
Mrs.A.Bakkiyalakshmi
Government Advocate for R4
: Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R5
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate for fourth
respondent and learned counsel for the fifth respondent and perused the records.
2. The petitioner, by the present writ petition has assailed the action of
the second respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Aa 1 (2)/2599/2012 dated
29.01.2019 removing him from service as being illegal with consequential
direction to quash the impugned proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
3. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that his father was working as
Assistant Executive Engineer in TANGEDCO and had died in harness on
19.10.1998; that he was appointed on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant on
21.10.2007; that he was appointed on compassionate ground had passed SSLC
examination and also he possessed Diploma in Textile Technology; that at the time
of appointment, he had submitted all the original certificates including SSLC mark
sheet; and that he was working honestly and sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of
the office superiors from the date of his appointment.
4. Petitioner contended that he had appeared for 10 th Standard
examination in April, 1993; that he was issued with certificate bearing
No.AA0620026 dated 22.06.1993 declaring him as failed in English subject; that
he had applied for re-totaling through the fifth respondent School; that on re-
totaling, his marks in English was revised as 52 marks and he was declared as
passed in the SSLC examination by the fourth respondent; that he was also issued
with a revised SSLC mark sheet with Serial No.0822795; and that he thereafter
joined Diploma in Textile Technology in the year 1995 and successfully completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
the course in October, 1999 and had joined PWD Department in the year 2007 on
compassionate ground.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on being provided with
appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents claim to have sent his
SSLC mark sheet for verification; that the fourth respondent claims that their
records do not reveal any re-totaling/re-valuation in English paper in the relevant
board examination; that pursuant to request made by the Superintending Engineer,
PWD, Coimbatore by letter dated 23.11.2009, the fifth respondent by letter dated
26.11.2009 categorically stated that as per the records maintained by them, the
SSLC mark sheet submitted by the petitioner is genuine and had been issued by the
competent authorities after re-totaling; and that the college where petitioner took
admission also got it verified while admitting him into Diploma in Textile
Technology in the year 1995, with the Department of Government Examination
who had confirmed the said certificate as genuine.
6. Petitioner further contended that the second respondent without
considering the confirmation issued by the fifth respondent had issued order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
03.01.2012 for initiation of departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution against
him; that the said order was challenged by him before this Court by filing writ
petition vide W.P.No.1659 of 2012; that this Court by order dated 21.02.2017 had
set aside the said proceedings initiated; and that this Court however granted liberty
to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the liberty
granted by this Court, the second respondent had issued show cause notice dated
06.05.2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings and
criminal prosecution should not be initiated against him; that he submitted a
detailed explanation dated 05.06.2017 stating that his SSLC mark sheet is genuine
and requested to drop the proceedings; that the second respondent after about one
year thereafter, all of a sudden, by proceedings issued in September, 2018 placed
him under suspension alleging that the SSLC mark sheet produced by him at the
time of getting appointment on compassionate ground is bogus; and that the
respondents have also lodged a complaint based on which the FIR was registered
against him under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 of IPC by the Inspector of
Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore; and that he had secured Anticipatory Bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
in the aforesaid crime on 23.08.2018.
8. Petitioner contends that the second respondent had also issued him
charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short “Rule, 1955) containing two article of charges; that
he had submitted a detailed explanation on 28.09.2018 to the said articles of
charge; that the second respondent not satisfied with the explanation given by him,
had appointed enquiry officer to enquire into the charges; that on receiving notice
from the enquiry officer, he had given an explanation on 30.10.2018; that the
enquiry officer even before examining him and considering his explanation,
completed the enquiry and prepared enquiry report on 28.11.2018 itself and called
him for enquiry on 30.11.2018, thereby making the enquiry proceedings a mere
formality, rendering the said proceedings vitiated.
9. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the enquiry officer
submitting his report holding the charges framed against him as proved, and on
being furnished with copy of enquiry report, he had submitted a detailed
explanation on 21.12.2018, objecting to the findings of the enquiry officer; and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
the second respondent without considering the explanation, had passed the
impugned order dated 29.01.2019 imposing the punishment of “removal from
service”.
10. Petitioner further contended that he was appointed by the first
respondent vide proceedings dated 21.10.2007 in the Coimbatore Region and was
issued with an appointment order by the second respondent to join the office of
Superintending Engineer, WRD, PWD, Bavani; that as per Rule 14 (a) (2) of
Rules, 1955, major penalties shall be imposed only by the appointing or the higher
authority i.e., Government can only initiate disciplinary action and impose major
penalty; that as the second respondent, who is subordinate to the first respondent
had initiated disciplinary action and imposed major penalty, the said order is per se
illegal and is liable to be quashed.
11. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents 2 and 3
failed to note that the fifth respondent has given reply based on the entry in the
Register Serial No.150655, wherein, it is noted that after re-totaling a new SSLC
mark sheet bearing Certificate No.AA0822795 was issued to him; that the fifth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
respondent by letter dated 26.11.2009 having confirmed the said certificate to be
genuine, the second and third respondent ought to have made enquiries regarding
the genuineness of the said SSLC mark sheet with the fourth respondent, which
would have proved the correctness of the claim made by him; and that the second
and third respondents without adopting such course of action have come to a
wrong conclusion and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
12. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the
impugned order by which he was visited with punishment of removal from service.
13. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the second
respondent and the fourth respondent.
Counter of Respondent No.2
14. The second respondent by the counter affidavit filed on his behalf
and also on behalf of the first and third respondents, denied the claim of the
petitioner that his father was employed in TNGEDCO, but stated that his father
was employed as Assistant Executive Engineer in PWD Department and died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
harness on 19.10.1998 while in service.
15. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the
petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground; that
petitioner joined the duty in the office of Superintending Engineer, WRD, Bhavani
Basin Circle, Coimbatore (now at Erode) on 15.11.2007(FN); that at the time of
joining duty, the petitioner had produced his SSLC original marks statement
Certificate bearing Serial No.AA0822795; that the petitioner did not produce the
original SSLC mark sheet bearing Serial No.AA0620026 pertaining to his
appearing for SSLC examination wherein he had secured 32 marks in English
subject, which the petitioner claims stood revised to 52 marks on re-totaling and
being issued certificate with Serial No.AA0822795.
16. The respondents, by the counter affidavit, further contended that on
the petitioner joining the duty and furnishing his SSLC original Certificate, the
Superintending Engineer had sent a communication dated 03.06.2009 and
16.07.2009 to the fourth respondent in order to verify the genuineness of the
petitioner's SSLC Certificate; that the fourth respondent in response to the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
letter, by letter dated 16.11.2009 replied that the petitioner's SSLC certificate was
not genuine; that the Superintending Engineer again addressed communication
dated 01.12.2009 to the fourth respondent to verify the records once again with
their office records; that the fourth respondent vide letter dated 08.02.2011 had
once again reported that the applicant's certificate was not genuine and also
requested the Superintending Engineer, WRD, Coimbatore (now at Erode) to take
appropriate action against the petitioner for having submitted bogus SSLC mark
sheet, in order to secure Government employment in an illegal manner.
17. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the
fifth respondent is not the competent authority to declare the genuineness or
otherwise of the mark sheet issued by the fourth respondent; that the fourth
respondent being a competent authority to certify the genuineness of the mark
sheet of the petitioner herein, the second respondent had acted on basis of the
report of the fourth respondent; that based on the report of the fourth respondent,
the second respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 03.01.2012 to the
petitioner for initiation of departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution; that the
petitioner had challenged the said show cause notice before this Court by filing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1659 of 2012; and that this Court while disposing the
aforesaid writ petition by order dated 21.02.2017 directed the PWD authority to
initiate proceedings afresh.
18. The respondents, by the counter affidavit, also contended that
pursuant to the order of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, the
respondents have issued show cause notice afresh on 06.05.2017 calling upon the
petitioner to produce any proof within 10 days, failing which, petitioner was
informed that if no explanation was submitted, it would be assumed that there were
no explanation to prove the genuienity of the SSLC certificate; and that
departmental action would be initiated as per the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court.
19. It is the further case of the respondents that though the petitioner
submitted his explanation to the aforementioned show cause notice, as he failed to
put forth any justifiable/acceptable reasons or proof of evidence to show the
genuineness of SSLC certificate, the same was informed to the first respondent;
and that the first respondent had advised to take disciplinary action and also to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
initiate criminal prosecution simultaneously against the petitioner; that
consequently a letter was addressed to the Commissioner, City Police, Coimbatore
on 17.07.2018 to take criminal action as per law; that based on the aforesaid
complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 19.08.2019 and the same
is under investigation; and that on registration of FIR, the petitioner was suspended
from service vide consequential proceedings dated 04.09.2018.
20. The respondents by the counter affidavit further contended that the
second respondent having initiated the disciplinary proceedings, had appointed
Deputy Superintending Engineer, Special Project Circle, Palani, as enquiry officer,
by proceedings dated 07.09.2018 to make a thorough enquiring into charges
initiated under Rule 17 (b) of Rules, 1955 and Rule 20 of TNGSC Rules, 1973 and
to submit his report; that the third respondent/enquiry officer has submitted his
enquiry report vide letter dated 28.11.2018 stating that the charges framed against
the petitioner are proved; that the enquiry officer before submitting his report had
issued notice calling upon the petitioner for personal appearance on 30.10.2018;
and that the petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer on the said date and
submitted his explanation, thus, the claim of the petitioner that enquiry report was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
prepared even before his appearance is incorrect, baseless and false; that the
second respondent vide proceedings dated 29.01.2019 while forwarding a copy of
the enquiry report had called upon the petitioner for further explanation; that the
petitioner failed to produce any documents or evidence to prove the genuineness of
his claim; and that as the petitioner had failed to prove the genuineness of his
SSLC certificate furnished at the time of joining service, the second respondent
issued the impugned order as per Rule 8 (vii) of Rules, 1955 removing the
petitioner from service with effect from 30.01.2019 FN, as punishment under
service rules.
21. The respondents by the counter affidavit, further contended that if at all the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he ought to have availed the further
remedy of appeal; and that the petitioner without availing said remedy has
approached this Court by the present writ petition; that in as much as there exists
an effective remedy of appeal under Rules, 1955, the present writ petition as filed
is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
Counter of Respondent No.4:-
22. The fourth respondent by the counter affidavit while denying the
writ averments, except those which were specifically admitted contended that the
said respondent authority conducted, detailed scrutiny of Tabulated Mark Registers
(TMR) by constituting a Special Committee under the head of Deputy Director
who is Custodian of Mark Register to ascertain whether the certificate as furnished
by the petitioer is issued by the Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai;
and that the Special Committee after thorough scrutiny of records confirmed no
such certificate bearing Serial Number AA0822795 was issued by the Education
Department.
23. The fourth respondent by the additional counter affidavit filed further
contended that after detailed verification of the “certificate issue Registers”,
Tabulated Mark Registers (TMR), Dispatch of Records of April, 1993, it was
found that the certificate claimed by the petitioner was not issued by the
Directorate to the petitioner or to any other candidate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
24. By the additional counter affidavit, it is also contended that the serial
sequences of certificate issued to the school candidates as well as private
candidates during April 1993 does not contain the Serial Number AA0822795 in
TMR; and thus, the alleged certificate on the basis of which the petitioner has
secured appointment on compassionate ground was not issued by the Directorate of
Government Examinations and is a fabricated document.
25. The fourth respondent by the additional counter affidavit, further
contended that there is no missing blank certificate corresponding to the Serial
Number as produced by the petitioner in the TMR; that considering the seriousness
of the allegation that fake certificate having been produced, the fourth
respondent/Directorate of Government Examinations has initiated the preventive
administrative measures and the Directorate has begun the process of introducing
Digital Water marking and QR – based verification in the certificates to prevent
fraudulent reproduction.
26. The fourth respondent, by the additional counter affidavit, also
contended that wherever re-totalling was done, and new mark sheets were issued,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
the said certificate begins with Serial Number AA0823 series, while the bogus
retotalled mark sheet produced by the petitioner starts with Serial No.AA0822; and
that there is also a mismatch and discrepancies in the secretary name and signature
on the certificate during the year.
27. The respondents in order to demonstrate that the certificate produced
by the petitioner is not a genuine certificate but it is a bogus fabricated certificate,
by the additional counter affidavit filed pointed out various discrepancies and
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
28. I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.
29. The claim of the petitioner with regard to genuineness of his SSLC
mark sheet is based on the communication addressed by the fifth respondent. It is
to be noted that the fifth respondent is a School through which candidates appear
for SSLC examination conducted by the Board i.e., fourth respondent and it is only
the fourth respondent who is competent to issue certificate declaring a student
having passed or failed in the SSLC examination and also marks secured by them
in the examination in the form of mark sheet under signature of its Secretary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
30. Though, the petitioner had claimed of having secured only 32 marks
in English initially, in the examination conducted in April,1993 and thus, failing in
SSLC examination, he had claimed that after applying for re-totaling the said 32
marks stood revised to 52 marks and thereby, he having passed the SSLC
examination. The petitioner further claimed that on account of increase of marks
in English in re-totaling, he has been issued with certificate bearing
No.AA0822795 and the genuineness of the said certificate being confirmed by the
fifth respondent vide his letter dated 26.11.2009. However, as noted hereinabove,
it is not the fifth respondent who is competent to either issue or certify the said
certificate, but it is the fourth respondent who is the competent authority to certify
the genuineness of the said certificate.
31. On the petitioner securing appointment on compassionate ground, the
second respondent having forwarded the SSLC certificate produced by the
petitioner bearing serial No.AA0822795 to the fourth respondent and the fourth
respondent by his communication dated 16.11.2009 having stated that the said
certificate of the petitioner to be not genuine, which statement was reiterated again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
on 08.02.2011, the petitioner cannot persist with his claim of the fifth respondent
certifying the said certificate as genuine.
32. Further, the petitioner while assailing the impugned order by which
he was visited with punishment of removal from service under Rule 17 (b) of the
Rules, 1955, having taken a specific plea that the second and third respondents
ought to have got the said certificate verified through fourth respondent, as the
same would have disclosed as to whether the said certificate is genuine or bogus,
since, the fourth respondent by the additional counter affidavit having now placed
before this Court, the details as to how the claim of the petitioner of said certificate
being genuine cannot be accepted and the said certificate being fabricated, the
claim of the petitioner to the contrary, and the castle built around the genuineness
of the certificate falls like “pack of cards”. Since, the petitioner had secured
employment on the basis of forged and fabricated document though on a
compassionate ground, such act/conduct of the petitioner cannot be condoned.
33. Since, the aforesaid act of the petitioner in securing employment by
producing forged and fabricated document is a misconduct under Rules, 1955, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by the second respondent firstly, by
issuing a show cause notice, and thereafter by framing articles of charge,
appointing an enquiry officer, on the enquiry officer submitting report, issuing
further notice to the petitioner seeking explanation and passing the impugned order
thereafter cannot be held as illegal actions for it to be quashed or interfered with by
this Court.
34. As the genuineness of the SSLC mark sheet, based on which, the
petitioner had secured employment on compassionate ground now stands
disproved, the petitioner cannot seek to take advantage of he pursuing further
studies on the basis of the said certificate and obtaining the Diploma in Textile
Technology for holding on to his employment.
35. Further, as it is evident that the fourth respondent being the
competent authority, having not issued any certificate in Serial Number as
produced by the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of
the respondent in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner for producing
a forged/fabricated SSLC certificate to secure employment is neither vitiated nor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
can be found fault with, much less, to hold that the impugned order by which the
petitioner is visited with the punishment of removal from service requires to be
interfered with.
36. Accordingly, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merits and is
dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the petitioner to the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Madras High Court within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
06.03.2026
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dh
To
1. Engineer in Chief WRD &
Chief Engineer (General)
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Chief Engineer, WRD
Public Works Department,
Coimbatore Region,
Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
3. The Deputy Superintending Engineer, WRD
O/o. The Superintending Engineer, PWD
Special Project Circle, Palani.
4. The Director,
Directorate of Government Examination,
DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
5. The Head Master,
P.S.G.Sarvajana Higher Secondary School,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.
6. The Member Secretary,
High Court Legal Services Committee,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
dh
Pre-delivery order made in
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:11 pm )
