Judgment :- The petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the Additional DIGP, Group Centre C.R.P.F., dated 8.7.2002 as well as the rejection of the appeal by the second respondent dated 18.9.2002, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential and monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner contends that he was working as a Ward Boy under the respondents. He was initially appointed on 11.4.1991. According to him, he has put in clean record of service for eleven years to the satisfaction of his superiors. The petitioner further contends that at the time of joining the Force, he had submitted all his certificates. After verification, he was appointed as Ward Boy. He has stated in his application that his date of birth is 15.6.1970. He also filed an application form correctly giving his date of birth as 15.6.1970. However, after completion of the verification roll at the time of enlistment, the date appears to have been stated as 18.7.1970. According to the petitioner, it was filled up by the office wrongly and that he was directed to sign the same and he had no occasion to verify the correctness of the date as entered by the office. But after a lapse of eleven years of his enlistment into the Force, the Additional D.I.G. had issued a Memo dated Nil September, 2001 that the petitioner had produced educational certificate showing the date of birth as 15.6.1970, whereas, while completing the verification, he had mentioned the date of birth as 18.7.1970. As the same was not in conformity, he was directed to explain regarding the mentioning of the wrong date of birth. According to the petitioner, it was only at that time he came to know about the inconsistency. On 16.10.2001, he gave a detailed explanation that the cause for the variation was due to oversight and as the same was filled up by the officials in the main office, he confirmed in his explanation that his date of birth was only 15.6.1970. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner was directed to produce documentary evidence to prove that his date of birth was 15.6.1970. Thereupon, he approached the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri and filed an affidavit, declaring that his date of birth was 15.6.1970. 3. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner was directed to produce documentary evidence to prove that his date of birth was 15.6.1970. Thereupon, he approached the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri and filed an affidavit, declaring that his date of birth was 15.6.1970. 3. However, the Additional D.I.G. had written a letter to the Headmaster, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Middle School, Thervoy, Gummidipoondi Taluk, to verify the authenticity of his educational certificate. In reply to the said letter, the Headmaster had intimated that the records had been kept in the old building and due to recent rains, the records have been damaged and expressed inability to trace out the correct date of birth. Thereafter, the respondent had requested the District Educational Officer, Tiruvallur District, to verify the date of birth and send a report. It appears that the District Educational Officer had observed that the certificate produced by the petitioner during his appointment was not genuine. On the strength of the said report, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri. However, without considering any of the materials, the Additional D.I.G. had passed an order on 8.7.2002, terminating the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition has been filed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents-1 and 2 contending that while checking the service book in respect of the petitioner, it was seen that the date of birth was recorded as 18.7.1970 and it was over-written in page No.1 as 15.6.1970, without any authenticity. According to the Certificate issued by the Headmaster, the date of birth was 15.6.1970. The case was referred to the Headmaster of the school and in reply, the respondent was informed that as the records were badly damaged, it was not possible to verify the correctness. The issue was thereupon taken up with the District Educational Officer to verify the correctness. The said officer has certified that the records sheet of the said individual/petitioner was not genuine and that the mark sheet of the individual was false. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the petitioner had given wrong date of birth. Not being satisfied with the explanation, disciplinary action was instituted. The said officer has certified that the records sheet of the said individual/petitioner was not genuine and that the mark sheet of the individual was false. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the petitioner had given wrong date of birth. Not being satisfied with the explanation, disciplinary action was instituted. In the enquiry, it was held that the petitioner had produced fake records sheet in support of his educational qualification and the date of birth at the time of recruitment. As the charges were held to be proved beyond doubt, he was removed from service and the appeal was also rejected on merits. 6. Mr.V.Dhanapalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the entire exercise of the respondents which led to the termination of the petitioner's service was totally uncalled for. There was absolutely no benefit for the petitioner for having given the date of birth wrongly as 18.7.1970 instead of 15.6.1970. The petitioner has asserted that he has not entered the date as 18.7.1970 and the actual date of birth was only 15.6.1970. In support of the same, he has also produced a certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri, confirming his date of birth as 15.6.1970. Learned counsel also raised a contention that in respect of the Adi Dravidar Welfare schools, it is only the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, who was the competent authority and under whom only, the Adi Dravidar schools were being conducted. The District Educational Officer was not the competent authority either to verify the certificate or to issue any report in the said context. Moreover, as far as the alleged report by the District Educational Officer is concerned, neither any copy was furnished to the petitioner nor was the petitioner enquired by the District Educational Officer before coming to the conclusion that the certificate furnished by the petitioner was not genuine. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the departmental proceedings were initiated only on the basis of the report of the District Educational Officer and the petitioner has not produced any proper material to disbelieve the report of the District Educational Officer. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the departmental proceedings were initiated only on the basis of the report of the District Educational Officer and the petitioner has not produced any proper material to disbelieve the report of the District Educational Officer. 8. In view of the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Educational Officer was not the competent authority, I had directed the learned Government Advocate to find out the actual position relating to the terms, administration and control of Adi Dravidar Welfare Schools. The following is the letter received from the District Educational Officer, Ponneri to the learned Additional Government Pleader dated 28.9.2004: " As per the instructions issued to the Superintendent of this office in person by you, I am to clarify further the points raised in para 5 of the affidavit as detailed below: As far as Adi Dravida Welfare Schools are concerned they are being governed by the Director of Adi-dravida and Tribal Welfare department. But the Transfer Certificates issued from the above schools are to be verified by the Inspecting Officers of the Education Department. In the case of Primary and middle schools, the District Elementary Educational Officer have been authorised and in the case of High/Higher Schools the District Educational Officer is authorised to verify the Transfer Certificate as in the case of other aided, Government and local body schools. It is also to be stated that on the other hand the District Adi-Dravida Welfare department is responsible for the appointments and action against staff, promotion, transfers, payment of salary for them and all other functioning of the school. The Special Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer and Collector are expected to pay regular visits to those schools. " 9. I have heard the submissions of both sides. 10. A perusal of the charge memo discloses that the petitioner is charged with the misconduct of having committed an act of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 by having produced fake records sheet in support of his civil educational qualification of VIII Standard and the date of birth at the time of initial recruitment. 11. After referring to the report of the District Educational Officer, the following is the only discussion and finding rendered by the enquiring authority: " 06. 11. After referring to the report of the District Educational Officer, the following is the only discussion and finding rendered by the enquiring authority: " 06. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE From the Statements of Prosecution witnesses supported by Prosecution Evidence, it is proved that record sheet produced by No.910910017 Ward Boy J.Raja at the time of initial recruitment in CRPF is a False one since Distt. Education authorities, Thiruvallor District certified same as a False one and on the other hand individual failed to submit any such documentary evidence to prove that certificate produced by him was a genuine one from any concerned authorities. Therefore, the Article-I of charge framed against No.910910017 Ward Boy J.Raja is proved beyond any doubt. FINDINGS: The Article-I of the Charge framed against No.910910017 Ward Boy J.Raja is proved beyond any doubt on the basis of documentary and oral evidence adduced in the Enquiry. " 12. A perusal of the above analysis discloses that there is practically no discussion about the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply. There is no reference to the certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Judicial Magistrate, disclosing his date of birth as 15.6.1970. It is not the case of the petitioner that his date of birth is 18.7.1970 so that any motives can be attributed against the petitioner of scheming to secure any benefits out of reducing his age, by one month. 13. As regards the genuineness, it is seen that the Headmaster of the school has sent his reply by saying that the records have been destroyed. The only material which is now relied on by the respondents is the report which is said to have been sent by the District Educational Officer, Ponneri, without reference to any positive material. Apart from the fact that the petitioner was not enquired by the District Educational Officer, the District Educational Officer does not appear to be the competent authority, as could be seen from his own letter dated 28.9.2004, as extracted above. It is admitted in the said letter that the control of the Adi Dravidar Welfare schools are with the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. It is only the transfer certificates from the said schools which are verified by the Inspecting Officers of the Education Department. It is admitted in the said letter that the control of the Adi Dravidar Welfare schools are with the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department. It is only the transfer certificates from the said schools which are verified by the Inspecting Officers of the Education Department. Therefore, the District Revenue Officer is neither concerned with the verification of other certificates such as qualification certificate or the birth certificate nor competent to express any opinion thereon. In the said background, no importance can be attached to the certificate issued by the District Educational Officer, characterising the certificate of the petitioner as a fake certificate. As could be seen from the stand taken by the respondents, reliance is placed only on the certificate issued by the District Educational Officer, who is not a competent authority, that too, on an enquiry to which the petitioner has not been a party. Therefore, the communication of the District Educational Officer is not only beyond his jurisdiction but also opposed to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner had not been given an opportunity by the District Educational officer before he came to the conclusion that the certificate was not a genuine one. 14. Apart from the above facts, I am also unable to appreciate the action of the respondents unmindful of the nature of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. It has to be borne in mind that the petitioner has positively contended that his date of birth is only 15.6.1970 and not 18.7.1970. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of trying to achieve any undue benefit in giving a wrong date of birth. As regards the educational qualification, as admitted by the District Educational Officer himself, the competent authority is only the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department and not the District Educational Officer. That the said alleged wrong entry of the date of birth should have led to the dismissal of an illiterate ward-boy is rather very strange. With the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, as regards the arrears of back-wages, considering that the petitioner has not been rendering any service from the date of dismissal, the above writ petition is allowed, directing reinstatement of the petitioner forthwith, however, without backwages. The petitioner shall be entitled to back-wages with effect from 20th August, 2002, being the date of filing of the writ petition.