Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order passed by the second respondent viz., Assistant Director of Veterinary Maintenance and Medical Services Department, Chidambaram dated 22.07.2008. 2. By the aforesaid order, the second respondent informed the petitioner that her appointment as livestock Assistant attached to the Veterinary Clinic, Chidambaram was cancelled by the Regional office and consequently she was relieved from service with effect from 22.07.2008. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 28.4.2009. Pending the writ petition, the application for interim stay, after notice to the respondent, was dismissed by this Court on 2.11.2010. 4. On notice from this Court, the first respondent Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai has filed a counter affidavit dated 8.11.2010. Since the averments made in the counter affidavit was not satisfactory, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to procure the original file for perusal by this Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's husband was working as Helper to the Doctor in the second respondent department and she got married with the said Ravi and however, unfortunately, her husband late Ravi died in harness in 31.10.1999, even at the prime age of 42 years. Thereafter, the petitioner being the only legal heir, has made an application for grant of employment assistance on compassionate ground. Since no action was initiated, the petitioner submitted a petition before the Chief Minister's Cell and the same was directed to the first respondent for proper consideration. Based on the petition, an order of appointment was issued by the first respondent on 15.01.2008 appointing her as a helper in the second respondent organization. 7. The appointment order has clearly revealed that her marital status being unmarried and she has also produced her educational certificate. It transpires that the certificate showing the educational qualification of the petitioner was sent for verification with the Education Department and by an order dated 22.07.2008, she was relieved from service. In the said order of relief, a reference was made to the letter received from the Head office dated 16.07.2008 as well as from the Regional Office dated 22.07.2008. It transpires that the certificate showing the educational qualification of the petitioner was sent for verification with the Education Department and by an order dated 22.07.2008, she was relieved from service. In the said order of relief, a reference was made to the letter received from the Head office dated 16.07.2008 as well as from the Regional Office dated 22.07.2008. The letter dated 22.07.2008 sent by the Regional Office addressed to the District Collector, Cuddalore which is also enclosed in Page 16 of the Typed set would show that the educational certificates produced by her was not true certificates and on verification, the certificates were found out to be false and therefore her appointment was cancelled,. 8. Challenging the reasoning given by the first respondent, the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not given opportunity and she was not served with a charge memo or show cause notice and no opportunity was given to her before the termination. Resisting the claim made by the petitioner, in the counter affidavit it was contended that the Regional Joint Director of Animl Husbandry, Cuddalore referred the genuineess of the petitioner’s educational certificates to the District Primary Educational officer, Cuddalore by letter dated 12.01.2008. 9. The District Primary Elementary Educational officer, Cuddalore stated that there was no evidence found to prove as to whether she has studied in the school and also stated that the educational certificate produced by her was not genuine one and on the basis of the said report, her initial order of appointment dated 15.01.2008 was cancelled. In paragraph 3, the first respondent- Commissioner of Veterinary Services,Chennai has also stated as follows: "It is submitted that the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Veterinary Services, Chennai stating that she actually studied at Municipal Middle School, Cuddalore upto 8th Standard. The discrepancy was due to initial of her name as the petitioner registered her father's name in the records of the school. The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Cuddalore again referred the educational certificate to the District Primary Educational Officer, Cuddalore in Ro.No.4510/B1/08 dated 19.01.2009, requesting to verify the genuineness of the certificate. The District Primary Educational officer now found the same certificate as genuine vide Lt.Roc.No.447/A5/08 dated 20.3.2009. The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Cuddalore again referred the educational certificate to the District Primary Educational Officer, Cuddalore in Ro.No.4510/B1/08 dated 19.01.2009, requesting to verify the genuineness of the certificate. The District Primary Educational officer now found the same certificate as genuine vide Lt.Roc.No.447/A5/08 dated 20.3.2009. As the two statement of the District Primary Officer, Cuddalore regarding the genuineness of the educational certificate was contradictory, the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary services, referred the matter to the Chief Educational Officer Cuddalore in Roc.No.69815/N1/06 dated 20.5.2009 and the reply for the same is awaited" 10. If this contention of the first respondent is accepted, it is not known why the respondents have hurriedly cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. It is in the light of the said statement, this Court directed the respondent to produce the original file. When initial reference was made to the District Primary Educational Officer, Cuddalore, the matter was referred for determination by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. The said officer one R.Balasundaram in his first communication dated 28.4.2008 stated that he went to the School which is reflected in the educational certificate given by the petitioner and on inspection he found that there was no evidence even in the school and therefore, the educational certificate produced by her was not truthful. The very same officer subsequently sent a further report dated 12.03.2009 stating that when he visited the Middle School at Pudupalayam and perused the school records. It was found that the admission register was in a very bad condition. Hence, the truthfulness of school stated in the certificate was not ascertained, but in the attendance register, her name was found and even in the mark register, her name was found. Hence the school mentioned in the certificate was truthful. If the inspecting officers gives their preliminary report, it is all the more necessary that the respondents should have conducted a proper enquiry and then after ascertaining the truthfulness of the said certificate, they should have taken further action. Even the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that they were awaiting for further opinion from the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore and the same is awaited. Therefore, the above action taken by the respondents in hurriedly dispensing with the services of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 11. Even the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that they were awaiting for further opinion from the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore and the same is awaited. Therefore, the above action taken by the respondents in hurriedly dispensing with the services of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 11. It is no doubt true that in case of any compassionate appointment, the candidates who aspire for the said post must have a minimum qualification prescribed for the said post. In case, any false certificate is produced, their appointment is liable to be cancelled. In the present case, there is no clarity in the materials, upon which, the said termination order came to be issued. When the Assistant Educational Officer made an inspection and sent two reports within a span of one month and in the second report, the truthfulness of the petitioner's studying in the school has been set out, then on what basis, the respondents have chosen to terminate the service of the petitioner, is not answered. That is why the first respondent himself has stated that a report was called for from the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore. 12. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent fairly admits that such a report is yet to be received. In such circumstance, it is not open to the first respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner. 13. The Supreme Court vide its Judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Bal Mukund Biarwa (2) reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 held that if the employee is charged with grave acts of misconduct, then he is entitled to a fair hearing according to the principles of natural justice and the rules laid down in the statutory rules should be followed. The Supreme Court in KamalNayan Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169 has held that the Government servant cannot be dismissed without following the rules prescribed for removal. 14. In the present case, in the absence of any clear material available in the file, the respondent's action in terminating the services of the petitioner, though he has worked only for a period of one year, is clearly illegal and hence the impugned order is set aside. 14. In the present case, in the absence of any clear material available in the file, the respondent's action in terminating the services of the petitioner, though he has worked only for a period of one year, is clearly illegal and hence the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner into service with consequential benefits and if there are any materials which are subsequently found against the petitioner, then the respondents are bound to conduct appropriate enquiry in accordance with the relevant service rules. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.