Judgment :- H.L. Gokhale, C.J. Heard Mr.Bharath Chakravarthy, learned counsel in support of this appeal, and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. The brief facts of the case are this wise: The appellant was appointed as Part Time Scavenger in a Government Higher Secondary School at Veppur, Cuddalore District on 2nd December, 1987. Subsequently, she was appointed as Watchman on 30th April, 1992 in the same school. On 24th November, 1997 she was served with a show cause notice stating that the certificate produced by her to prove her educational qualification was found to be bogus one. The certificate was stated to have been issued by the Headmaster of one Asad Middle School at Mettupalayam. The appellant submitted her explanation on 112. 1997, which is to the following effect:- “As referred in the reference, I joined in service as Scavenger in the year 1997 and was cleaning toilets. I am a widow, belonging to Adi Dravida Community. I came to this menial job, since I could not do any other job. As requested for the promotion, my deceased father went to my school where I studied upto 5th standard in my native place and obtained record sheet from the school and sent the same along with the appointment order, educational qualification, seniority order to the office of the District Educational Officer, through the Head Master, Government High School, Veppur. After receiving all the above documents, I was given the post of Night Watchman sympathetically. I was working from the year 1992 continuously. I was joined as Watchman in the year 1992 and working continuously. My Service Register was also sent within one year for regularization of my services. Therefore, I am continuously working since May, 1992. I received a show cause notice dated 211. 1997 for disciplinary action from your office. I studied in the Sirunesalur School upto 5th Standard and got promoted and all the certificates relating to my appointment, seniority order, eligibility certificates were already sent to your office. Therefore, I am continuously working since May, 1992. I received a show cause notice dated 211. 1997 for disciplinary action from your office. I studied in the Sirunesalur School upto 5th Standard and got promoted and all the certificates relating to my appointment, seniority order, eligibility certificates were already sent to your office. Therefore, I request your good self to kindly consider this widow’s request sympathetically and kindly regularize me and do the needful.” The above explanation was not found to be satisfactory, and therefore, the 1st respondent by his impugned order dated 212. 1997 removed her from service. 4. Challenging the said removal order, the appellant filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai bearing O.A.No.3434 of 1998, which after the abolition of the said Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court. Earlier, the Tribunal had granted an order of interim stay, which continued during the pendency and disposal of the writ petition by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge who heard the matter took the view that since the certificate tendered by the petitioner/appellant at the time of her regularization was not found to be a genuine one, the impugned dismissal order passed by the first respondent could not be disturbed, and therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only requirement for the appointment to the post, which the appellant occupies, was that the person should know how to read and write. That is seen from her appointment order dated 30th April, 1992 itself. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to explain to us as to how the earlier certificate was tendered to the concerned office. It is, however, seen from the impugned order dated 212. 1997 passed by the 1st respondent that when the appellant submitted her explanation, she had given her school certificate to show that she had studied in a school at Sirunesalur, South Arcot District. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that that certificate should have been verified as to whether it was a genuine one or not, and without examining that aspect the appellant had been dismissed from service, which the learned single Judge ought not to have accepted. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that that certificate should have been verified as to whether it was a genuine one or not, and without examining that aspect the appellant had been dismissed from service, which the learned single Judge ought not to have accepted. We may note here that a photo copy of the said certificate issued by the Sirunesalur School was produced before us for our perusal. 6. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that since the certificate tendered by the appellant at the time of her regularization was found to be a bogus one, the departmental authorities as well as the learned single Judge could not be faulted with for the view taken by them. 7. We have noted the submissions of both the learned counsel. As can be seen, the post in which the appellant was working was that of a scavenger, and subsequently, that of a watchman. Appellant is a widow and at all material times her claim was that she had studied upto 5th Standard. The requirement was that the person concerned should be able to read and write. There was no dispute that she was in a position to read and write. It appears that on some complaints the respondents went into the issue of genuineness of the certificate, which was tendered by the appellant at the time of her regularization. This is after the lapse of five years. The appellant candidly accepted before the officer concerned that the certificate which was in their record was not her certificate and she studied in another school. In the said circumstances, what was expected of the officer concerned was to find out whether she had really studied in the school at Sirunesalur as claimed by her. Without doing that he proceeded only on the basis of the certificate which was on record, and since, that certificate was not a genuine one, he passed the impugned order that the appellant be removed from service. In our view, this is an erroneous approach. The defence taken by the appellant ought to have been examined properly which could have been done only after verifying the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Sirunesalur School. For this reason, in our view, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In our view, this is an erroneous approach. The defence taken by the appellant ought to have been examined properly which could have been done only after verifying the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Sirunesalur School. For this reason, in our view, the appeal deserves to be allowed. We allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and also that of the departmental authorities. The appellant has been continuing in service by virtue of the interim order passed earlier. She will continue in service hereafter also. Although we are passing this order, in the event the first respondent is still inclined to examine this aspect, it will be open to him, which he may do so after issuing notice to the appellant and after getting the record from the Sirunesalur School as also from the Employment Exchange, if he deems it necessary. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.