Judgment :- 1. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1974 from Veeravanallur Hindu High School in Tirunelveli district. The petitioner thereafter completed 2 year Diplomo Course in Teacher Education in BNV Teacher Training Institute, Kolar district, Karnataka during the year 1979-1981. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Thajil Islam Elementary School, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli district after verifying all the original certificates. The certificates were returned to the petitioner after due verification. 3. The petitioner was transferred from Pudukottai to Nanguneri Panchayat Union in Tirunelveli district, and thereafter to Palayamkottai Panchayat Union and posted at Santhaipettai Elementary School. The service of the petitioner was regularised on 15.03.1989 and he was declared to have completed his probation on 21.09.1990. 4. The petitioner was elected as Secretary of Tamil Nadu Thotakkapalli Asiriyar Koottani, and in his capacity as Secretary, took action to get grievance of the employees redressed from the authorities. 5. It is submitted that Union activities of the petitioner annoyed the officials of the respondent department, therefore, the petitioner was directed to re-submit his certificates for verification. 6. In pursuance to the direction from the higher authorities, the petitioner submitted his original certificates for verification. The certificates were again returned to the petitioner after due verification. The impugned order was passed thereafter withholding his salary without issuing any show cause notice or holding any enquiry. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner was regular employee and in absence of holding departmental enquiry and giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, no order to his detriment could be passed. 8. The contention further is that in any case, the respondents had no jurisdiction to withhold the salary of the petitioner, once he was allowed to perform his duties as Secondary Grade Teacher. The order on the face of it therefore, is without jurisdiction, thus, not sustainable in law. 9. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader contends that appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification of the certificates produced at the time of interview. It was therefore, within the right of the respondents to cancel the appointment in case the certificates were found to be false/forged. 10. It is also the contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader that on verification, the diploma certificates produced by the petitioner from BNV Teacher Training Institute, Kolar district, Karnataka was found to be bogus. It was therefore, within the right of the respondents to cancel the appointment in case the certificates were found to be false/forged. 10. It is also the contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader that on verification, the diploma certificates produced by the petitioner from BNV Teacher Training Institute, Kolar district, Karnataka was found to be bogus. The petitioner therefore, was directed to submit the original certificates, which inspite of repeated requests, the petitioner failed to submit. It was on account of this, that salary was ordered to be stopped. 11. On consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. It was not within the jurisdiction of the respondents to stop the salary of the petitioner, as in case certificates of the petitioner was found to be bogus, it was open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner departmentally and pass an order of dismissal from service. 12. However, the respondents had no right to allow the petitioner to continue in service without payment of salary. 13. Otherwise also, stand of the respondents on the face of it look to be imaginery. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had submitted original certificates which on verification returned to him. Again at the time of regularisation, certificates were checked. The respondents have not plaecd on record any show cause notice which may have been issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation, to show cause as to why action be not be taken against him for getting the appointment on the basis of forged certificate. 14. As already noticed above, the order of stoppage of salary cannot be sustained, as there is no provision for withholding salary when the person was allowed to continue in service. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is however made clear that in case any material is available with the respondents to prove that the certificate of the petitioner was bogus, it shall be open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, but only after holding departmental enquiry and giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. No cost.