P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a Writ of certiorari, calling for the records and to quash the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in G. O. Rt. No. 870, dt. 22-4-1997 in I. D. No. 518/94 as illegal, arbitrary, void and against the principles of natural justice and direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner was a displaced worker. He was recruited as Casual Driver on 16-5-1990 at tuni Depot and his services were regularised on 1-8-1993. At the time of recruitment, he was asked by the recruiting authorities to produce evidence in support of his age and fearing that the non- production of Education certificate might deprive him of the job, he had produced a false educational certificate. While matters stood thus, the petitioner was stopped from working as a Driver w. e. f. 13-8-1993 and a charge sheet was issued to him on 17-8-1993 containing 2 charges, viz. , (1) for having submitted the false T. C. No. 825635 and admn. No. 1074/73 at the time of recruitment for the post of Casual Driver, and got the job which is a serious offence in nature, and (2) for having cheated the corporation duly submitting the false T. C. which is a serious misconduct, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) regulations, 1963, It is further stated that the domestic enquiry was conducted against the charges and not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, he was removed from service on 15-3-1994 by the 2nd respondent. As against the said order of removal an industrial dispute was raised, but however nil award was passed. Questioning the same the present Writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) SEVERAL details narrating all the facts and circumstances had been furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent, explaining the facts and circumstances and also taking a stand that the impugned award made by Respondent no. 4 is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 is well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) SRI Subhan, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that the production or non-production of the certificate is of no consequence, since it is not essential, and in a similar fact situation in W. P. No. 19892/99 this Court by order dt. 10-2-2000 after recording the said contentions had directed the Statutory authority to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner therein on merits sympathetically taking into consideration the facts and circumstances. On the strength of the said judgment, the learned counsel had contended that this is not a matter of such a serious misconduct, so as to warrant a removal as such. The learned counsel further had maintained that in such circumstances, the 4th respondent is totally unjustified in confirming the order of removal as such and definitely it is highly disproportionate to the proved misconduct even otherwise. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the Circular dated 11-8-1993 issued by APSRTC in this regard. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that this Circular was not brought to the notice of Respondent No. 4. ( 5 ) SRI Srinivasa Rao, representing sri V. Vivekananda Swamy on the other hand had contended that a detailed enquiry was conducted and in fact at para-7 of the impugned award all the aspects have been discussed in detail and further appreciating the Exs. M-1 to M-8, the respondent No. 4 had arrived at a correct conclusion and there is no illegality or legal infirmity. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to ex. M-4 Enquiry Report and the other documents Exs. M-6, M-7 and M-8, the charge sheet. Certificate of the Headmaster and the T. C. respectively. The learned counsel further contended that when a false certificate is produced for the purpose of obtaining a job, definitely it is a serious misconduct and hence the order of removal for such a proved misconduct is well justified. M-6, M-7 and M-8, the charge sheet. Certificate of the Headmaster and the T. C. respectively. The learned counsel further contended that when a false certificate is produced for the purpose of obtaining a job, definitely it is a serious misconduct and hence the order of removal for such a proved misconduct is well justified. The learned counsel further contended that the 4th respondent had considered all the facts and circumstances and had arrived at a conclusion that the order of removal cannot be interfered with and all the factual aspects had been dealt with in detail and evidence had been recorded and in view of the limitations imposed on the Writ Court, the impugned award of Respondent No. 4 require no interference at all. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsels at length and perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the impugned award at para-5, the following points had been framed for consideration; (1) Whether the findings of the domestic enquiry officer are not valid and proper? (2) Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the workman is not justified? (3) To what relief the petitioner entitled? e 4th respondent infact had discussed all s aspects in detail commencing from ragraph No. 6 to 10, In fact at para-7 while iking the award, the 4th respondent had served as follows: "a perusal of the enquiry report shows that the enquiry officer recorded the statement of the delinquent driver and considered the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner, letter of clarification of the Head Master of the concerned School and explanation of the petitioner to the charge sheet and held both the charges proved after discussing the entire material on record and by giving cogent reasons for his findings. Ex. M-8 is the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner and Ex. M-7 is the letter of the Head master of the concerned school stating that the said transfer certificate is not issued in the name of the petitioner and the same does not pertain to the petitioner but the certificate with this number and admission number was issued as per records of the school in the name of one Kottapalli Narayana rao and not the petitioner. In fact the petitioner himself admits in his statement before the enquiry officer that he produced false certificate under ex. In fact the petitioner himself admits in his statement before the enquiry officer that he produced false certificate under ex. M-7 at the time of recruitment for the post of casual driver in APSRTC though he did not study in that school. He states that he produced this false educational certificate since he had no record of his date of birth at the time of recruitment for this post and he produced it thinking that he will be disqualified for the post in the absence of date of birth certificate. The enquiry officer considered this plea of the petitioner and observed that the petitioner did not make any attempt to know the procedure to be followed in the absence of his date of birth at the time of recruitment. He further observes that had the driver confessed that he had no record of date of birth he would have been guided properly and as per the procedure in vogue, an undertaking will be taken from him to that extent and his age will be decided by the medical officer at the time of his medical examination and accordingly his age will be fixed in the APSRTC. Thus, admittedly the petitioner produced false school certificate and thus, cheated the Corporation. There is no force in the contention of the petitioner that no educational qualification is required for the post of driver in APSRTC and therefore, producing false certificate is not material. His contention that he was not given job on the basis of this certificate and therefore, producing false certificate does not amount to any misconduct is fallacious and without any substance. The management required information regarding date of birth and document evidencing date of birth and the management relies upon the documents produced by the candidates for the determination of age. Merely because the candidate is also medically examined, it does not absolve the petitioner from the duty to place the correct facts before the authorities by producing genuine documents. Producing false certificate even showing the correct date of birth involves moral turpitude and an element of the cheating on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer validly held that the two charges levelled against the workmen for the misconduct, are proved. Apart from this Ex. M-1 to M-8 also had been discussed in detail. Producing false certificate even showing the correct date of birth involves moral turpitude and an element of the cheating on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer validly held that the two charges levelled against the workmen for the misconduct, are proved. Apart from this Ex. M-1 to M-8 also had been discussed in detail. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner had laid stress on the Circular dated 11-8-1993 which reads as follows: sub: grievances Production of false Educational certificates by drivers and Conductors - Action to be taken in case they are taken back to duty - Reg. ( 7 ) DURING the past 2 years, orders of VC and MD were being communicated to consider the cases of Drivers and conductors who produced false educational certificates at the time of appointment and later produced genuine certificates in lower classes or were provided as having no qualification, but eligibility for the post of driver. In some of the cases, orders of VC and MD were communicated to lodge complaints with the police for the act of cheating and forgery duly taking them back to duty. ( 8 ) THE following reasons could have prompted the drivers to submit false educational certificates: (1) As per genuine original certificate, the age of the driver as on date of recruitment may be more than the maximum age limit prescribed which ultimately disqualified him for appointment. (2) If the candidate is within the age limit, but produced false certificate viii Class and above, it may be with an ulterior motive of obtaining promotion subsequently as controller/adc. (3) The candidate might have produced false education certificates to obtain nativity/ residential certificates from revenue Officials. (4) A candidate is entitled for Driving licence after he attains the age of 18 years. L. V. Driving licence has to be taken for a period of 2 years before obtaining Heavy licence. Candidate is eligible to obtain Heavy licence on at 20 years and he completes 3 years Heavy licence at the age of 23 years. If, original genuine educational qualifications certificate is not matching with this analysis, the candidate might have produced false educational certificate. (5) The candidate might have produced false educational certificate to show his age less, so that he will gain some more years of service. If, original genuine educational qualifications certificate is not matching with this analysis, the candidate might have produced false educational certificate. (5) The candidate might have produced false educational certificate to show his age less, so that he will gain some more years of service. (6) The Driving licences shall also be checked according to which the age can be counter checked and correctness of the date of birth be verified. (7) His service with the private operator could also be a guide for assessing the age. (8) His service with the private operator could also be a guide for assessing the age. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, it is the responsibility of senior Manager (F) to take all the factors mentioned above into the account and ensure that the candidate being considered for the post Driver based on the orders of vc and MD communicated fulfils all the minimum age, maximum age, driving licence period, height, literary etc. , apart from the certificate produced again is genuine and has been verified as such. Only after ensuring, that the candidate is in possession of requisite qualifications under all these Heads, their cases shall be considered for appointment duly lodging complaint to the Police Department for having submitted the Bogus educational qualification certificates. It is not the intention of the Head Office to consider the candidates for the post of Driver without the candidate being in possession of requisite qualification (like literacy, driving licence etc.) for the post of driver. The sanction communicated as from VC and MD should be seen in the back ground, that some candidates with over enthusiasm had submitted false educational qualifications, even though they are in possession of requisite qualification for the post of driver. ( 10 ) IT is, therefore, possible that the date of birth as entered in the records based on the school certificate may not be correct. ( 11 ) IT is, therefore, necessary that the date of births of all such candidates should be reviewed sent for a remedial examination and correct date of births are recorded after due notice if necessary. (1) Re-assessment age. (2) Verification of the certificate produced. " evidently the impact or otherwise of the circular could not be considered by the 4th respondent for the reason that the said point was neither urged nor argued. (1) Re-assessment age. (2) Verification of the certificate produced. " evidently the impact or otherwise of the circular could not be considered by the 4th respondent for the reason that the said point was neither urged nor argued. As can be seen from the award, no oral evidence had been let in either on the part of the workman or on the part of the management. In the light of certain guidelines specified in the circular, I am of the considered opinion that it is a matter to be re-considered. Inasmuch as no evidence was let in by either of the. parties and especially in the light of the fact that the Circular dt. 11-8-1993 is brought to my notice, I am inclined to set aside the impugned award and remand the matter back to the 4th respondent to give opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence relating to the proportionality of the punishment and also the effect and the impact of the Circular dt. 11-8-1993 and other points if any and dispose of the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed to the extent communicated above. No order as to costs.