Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to order, dated 27.08.2005 bearing Roc.No.5591/2002/PA-33 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same. 2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as part-time Panchayat clerk at Vandavasi Panchayat Union on 01.10.1980. The petitioner has stated that at the time of his appointment, the petitioner was a failed candidate in S.S.L.C, since he had gone through all the papers except English. Then in the year 1980, the petitioner wrote S.S.L.C Examination only for the subject English and secured a pass mark and produced the certificate. Considering the said qualification of passing S.S.L.C., on 07.11.1996, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant / Rural Welfare Officer Gr.II at Thellar Panchayat Union. On 05.06.2002, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, the respondent herein issued a charge memo to the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner had produced bogus S.S.L.C mark sheets for the examination conducted during March 1980. 3. Pursuant to the memo, dated 05.06.2002, issued on the petitioner, enquiry was conducted. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, dated 16.04.2004, the Disciplinary Authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer. Though the petitioner submitted his representation, dated 12.05.2004 against the findings of the enquiry officer, as per order, dated 27.08.2005, the respondent herein passed an order in ROC.No.5591/2002/PA3-3 terminating the petitioner from service by accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. Aggrieved by which, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to deceive the respondent by producing any bogus certificate. According to him, he wrote the S.S.L.C., examination in March 1980 and got through the examination, for which, certificate was issued to the petitioner and based on which, promotion to the post of Junior Assistant was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was terminated from the service on 27.08.2005, based on the finding of the enquiry officer, for no fault on his side. However, the petitioner was terminated from the service on 27.08.2005, based on the finding of the enquiry officer, for no fault on his side. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is ready and willing to accept, even a lower cadre post, without going into the merits of the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on the decision, P.Sekar vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and 2 others, reported in 2008-4-L.W.70 S.N. 5. As per the decision relied on by the petitioner herein, a Division Bench of this Court held that a similarly placed person eligible to the post of Flockman to the next feeder category, by way of reversion. As per the decision, it is seen that the Flockman (employed in Animal Husbandry Department of the State) was selected and promoted for the post of Veterinary Livestock Inspector, based on the mark-sheet which did not tally with the original mark register was found guilty and was dismissed from service and the order was upheld by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. However, the Division Bench held as follows : "Keeping in view the fact that there is no finding, nor any material to indicate that the petitioner had knowingly submitted a false mark sheet and such question would be ultimately decided in the pending criminal case and taking into consideration the social strata from which the petitioner comes, Court feels that in the interest of justice that punishment of termination of service is required to be modified." 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that it is a similar case, based on the same set of facts and that of the case reported in 2008-4-L.W 70 S.N. (cited supra). 7. The next question in the writ petition is whether there is any feeder category to accommodate the petitioner, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The next question in the writ petition is whether there is any feeder category to accommodate the petitioner, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. G.O. (Ms.) No.962, Rural Development (E7) Department, dated 26.11.1990, paragraph 1 (4) reads as follows : "Existing part-time clerks will be appointed as Panchayat Assistants against the posts sanctioned above in any of the Panchayats under their respective charge." Therefore, it is made clear that though the petitioner had been originally appointed as part-time clerk in the Panchayat, as per the Government Order, that post was regularised as Panchayat Assistant and the petitioner was holding only a promotion post as Rural Welfare Officer Gr.II in the cadre of Junior Assistant. 8. As the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, in the light of the decision, I find it just and reasonable to pass similar orders. 9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of, in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service by the respondent, without backwages in the feeder post as Panchayat Assistant, by way of reversion. No order as to costs.