Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has stated that he had been appointed as a Helper (Trainee) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on 11.10.1994, initially, on probation. On 10.10.1995, he had been absorbed as a regularised staff of the Board. The petitioner had been appointed, due to the death of his mother Murugammal, a sweeper, who had been employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 2. It has also been stated that the petitioner had put in eight years of unblemished service. However, based on the charge that he had produced a bogus educational certificate, his service had been terminated by the third respondent, by an order, dated 27.9.2001. The appeal filed by the petitioner, before the first respondent, on 10.5.2003, had been disposed of by the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 5.1.2005. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the first and the second respondents had failed to note that, appointments to the post of Helpers were made by three modes, namely, (i) from the owners of the land and their legal heirs, who had been affected due to the acquisition of their lands by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (ii) Contract labourers, pursuant to the report of justice Khalid Commission and (iii) Compassionate ground appointment. 4. He had also submitted that those, who had been appointed as Helpers, from the category of contract labourers and from the erstwhile land owners and their legal heirs, had not been imposed with the punishment of removal from service, even though there had been cases of bogus certificates. Only a reduction of rank had been imposed on certain persons. It had also been submitted that for appointment to the post of helpers, no educational qualifications are required. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 5.1.2005, dismissing the petitioner from service, based on the allegation that he had produced bogus educational certificate, cannot be held to be valid. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a helper/trainee in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on 11.10.1994, on compassionate ground. It is one of the conditions that the applicant should have passed eighth standard. The petitioner had submitted a certificate showing that he had passed eighth standard. It is one of the conditions that the applicant should have passed eighth standard. The petitioner had submitted a certificate showing that he had passed eighth standard. When the said certificate had been sent to the District Educational Officer, Chennai North, for verification, it had been found that the said certificate was a bogus one. Therefore, a charge memo, dated 29.2.2000, had been issued by the third respondent, to the petitioner and it had been acknowledged by the petitioner, on 27.3.2000. Even after the receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner did not submit any explanation. It has also been stated that in order to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, an Enquiry Officer had been appointed to conduct an enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioner. A show cause notice, dated 19.12.2000, issued by the third respondent, had been received by the petitioner, on 20.1.2001. Though the petitioner had sought for 15 days time for submitting the explanation, he did not submit any explanation, thereafter. In such circumstances, the third respondent had passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service, on 13.9.2001. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, in W.P.No.25005 of 2003, had been dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner had also been dismissed, on 5.1.2005. Since the minimum qualification required for appointment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, on compassionate ground, is a pass in eighth standard, as per the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board’s regulations, and since, the petitioner did not possess such a qualification and as he had submitted a bogus educational certificate, the petitioner had been dismissed from service. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the petitioner had been dismissed from service, by the order of the third respondent, dated 13.9.2001, and the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the said order had been rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order, dated 5.1.2005. Even though sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation on the charge that he had produced a bogus educational certificate, to claim that he had obtained the minimum educational qualification of pass in eighth standard, to be appointed on compassionate ground, he had not availed the said opportunity. Even though sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation on the charge that he had produced a bogus educational certificate, to claim that he had obtained the minimum educational qualification of pass in eighth standard, to be appointed on compassionate ground, he had not availed the said opportunity. Further, in the enquiry conducted, in respect of the charges leveled against the petitioner, it had been found that the petitioner was guilty of producing a bogus educational certificate at the time of his appointment in service on compassionate ground. 7. It is not open to the petitioner to claim that he should be imposed with a lesser punishment, since, certain other persons had been punished, for producing bogus educational certificates, only with the punishment of reduction of rank. Once it is found that the petitioner had produced a bogus educational certificate and that he does not possess the minimum educational qualification of a pass in eighth standard, for being appointed in the service of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on compassionate ground, the petitioner cannot claim that the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. 8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1215 of 2006 is closed.