Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 13.07.2001, and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition, read that; i. petitioner was born on 29.06.1953 at Kilambakkam, Tiruvallur District and he studied upto 8th standard at Panchayat Union Middle School, Kilambakkam. The petitioner discontinued his studies and got his name registered in the employment exchange. ii. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Labour (Worker) on daily rated basis in the Government Hospital, Chennai, but subsequently, his service was terminated for want of vacancy. iii. The District Collector sent a list of retrenched casual workers for appointment in the office of Director of Employment Exchange and Training. From the list of candidates, sponsored by the District Collector, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant, in the office of the Joint Director (Craftsman Training), (Incharge), Employment and Training, Chepak, Chennai. iv. At the time of employment, the petitioner submitted his transfer certificate issued by the School, showing that the petitioner studied upto 8th standard. The service of the petitioner was regularised on completion of probation period. The petitioner was accordingly directed to submit the original certificate regarding educational qualification. v. In response to the direction, the petitioner submitted his original certificate issued by the School authorities on 06.07.2000. On verification of genuineness of the certificate issued by the petitioner, a charge memo was issued by the respondent on 15.11.2000, alleging therein that the petitioners date of birth was shown in the service register as 29.06.1956 instead of 29.06.1953 vi. In the service registered, it was recorded that the petitioner studied in the Government Higher Secondary School, Madhavaram, which showed that the petitioner had secured employment by producing false certificate, thereby violated the Rule 20 of the Conduct Rules. vii. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge memo, pointing out that he never studied at Government Higher Secondary School, Madhavaram, but he studied at Panchayat Union Middle School, Kilambakkam, and that the certificate submitted by him on 06.07.2000 was issued by the School. If any wrong entry was made in the service register, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such discrepancy. viii. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. If any wrong entry was made in the service register, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such discrepancy. viii. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. Before the Enquiry Officer, specific stand of the petitioner was that he never produced false certificate to secure employment, and that the only certificate submitted by him was on 06.07.2000. He denied his responsibility for discrepancy in the service register. ix. The Enquiry Officer failed to examine any witnesses on behalf of the department nor exhibit any document to support the allegation. In absence of any evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled again him. The competent authority, accepting the enquiry report, issued show cause notice to the petitioner for removal from service, and after consideration of reply ordered his removal from service. 3. The petitioner challenged the order of removal being illegal, on the ground that the petitioner never produced the certificate, showing that the petitioner studied in Government Higher Secondary School, Madhavaram. 4. The petitioner further challenged the impugned order on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not supported by any material, therefore, finding recorded is based on no evidence, therefore, cannot be sustained. 5. The ground was also raised that it was not open to initiate proceedings after 18 years of entering into service. One of the pleas raised is that order has been passed by an Officer, who was not holding regular post of Joint Director, therefore, In-charge Officer cannot order removal from service. 6. In the reply affidavit, the stand of the respondent is, that at the time of appointment, the petitioner produced educational certificate, showing that he studied and passed 8th standard at Madhavaram High School, and his date of birth as 29.06.1956 and that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of said certificate. These facts were duly recorded in the newly opened service register and his signature taken on the entries. 7. The entries made in the service register were duly attested by the then Administrative Officer (Personnel). It is the case of the respondent that the report was received on 10.06.1997 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner had secured Government appointment by producing false educational certificate. 7. The entries made in the service register were duly attested by the then Administrative Officer (Personnel). It is the case of the respondent that the report was received on 10.06.1997 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner had secured Government appointment by producing false educational certificate. The stand of respondent in the enquiry, was that the Head Master of Madhavaram High School confirmed that no such record of certificate produced existed in the school. 8. It is the stand of the respondent that on verification, it was found that the certificate issued by the petitioner was not genuine, and that he did not have requisite qualification for appointment as Office Assistant, i.e. pass in 8th standard. 9. The reference is also made to Government Order No.190 dated 09.06.1995, stipulating therein that Government Servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of recruitment rules, but secured employment by furnishing false information or producing false certificate should not be retained in service, and in case of permanent employee, disciplinary action be taken as per the procedure laid down under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and in case the charge is proved, the employee be dismissed from service. 10. It is the case of the respondent that the Enquiry Officer, after thorough investigation of the records and enquiry, submitted his report stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved beyond doubt. In sum and substance, stand of the respondent in the counter is that the petitioner is guilty of having secured employment on false information by producing forged certificate. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that allegations, that the petitioner had submitted forged certificate have not been proved, as no certificate was not produced before the Enquiry Officer, and that the allegation against the petitioner was only that in the service register, it was so recorded. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was that wrong entry in the service register was not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge, therefore, the order of removal cannot be sustained. 13. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry, no witness was examined, and the finding of enquiry officer was based on no material, thus, not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. 13. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry, no witness was examined, and the finding of enquiry officer was based on no material, thus, not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of AgyakarSingh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 1 SCT 709, was pleased to lay down, that a person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. That compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law where an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud, as fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. In the said case the petitioner, who had got appointment on the basis of false certificate, was held to be not entitled to any sympathy and equitable consideration. 15. The Honble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SudeshKumar vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (2) SCT 391, was pleased to lay down as under: "3. For getting appointment, the petitioner had also submitted an attested copy of purported original certificate of Higher Secondary Examination (Annexure P-11) showing his date of birth as December 01, 1952. On receipt of a complaint that the petitioner had not given his correct age, the matter was referred to the Controller of Examinations, Punjab University, Chandigarh, by the respondents. The Controller of Examinations, Punjab University, Chandigarh, vide letter dated April 09, 1997, informed that the petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary (Commerce Group) Examination in March, 1964, against Role No.79925 by getting 801 marks out of 1850. Along with the letter, a duplicate certificate in relation to the passing of the Higher Secondary Examination by the petitioner was also enclosed. His date of birth in the certificate was stated to be December 01, 1947. The petitioner was, thus, overage since his age was more than 25 years at the time of joining the service, but by submitting a bogus certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe, he got age relaxation of 5 years. He thus not only submitted a forged certificate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category but also submitted a fabricated copy of the Higher Secondary Examination pass certificate showing his date of birth as December 01, 1952. 5. He thus not only submitted a forged certificate belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category but also submitted a fabricated copy of the Higher Secondary Examination pass certificate showing his date of birth as December 01, 1952. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders by exercising our writ jurisdiction. No convincing argument could be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As stated above, the respondent-authorities observed all rules and regulations governing disciplinary proceedings. No illegality was committed in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. It is also worth noticing that during the course of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner made requests for change of the Inquiry Officers as well as the Presenting Officers. On his requests, the Inquiry Officers and the Presenting Officers were changed thrice. All excuses and pretexts appear to have been used by the petitioner to prolong the inquiry so that he could continue in service as long as possible. The petitioner continued in the job for about 25 years which he had secured through fraudulent means. He got the salary for all these years, got promotion and enjoyed all other perks, to which he was not entitled at all." 16. The Honble Allahabad High Court, in the case of RahulKumar Chaubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (84) ALR 400, was pleased to lay down as under: "7. The case of the petitioner, however, is that he had neither claimed any benefit of being a sportsman nor submitted the said certificate hence the termination is wholly illegal. The copy of the sports certificate clearly mention the name of the petitioner. About the chart, AnnexureC.A.4, the petitioner in para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit has said that this is a doctored document, inasmuch as, the name of the petitioner is mentioned at two places namely 249 and 253. It is no doubt true that Rahul Kumar Chubey, Son of Narsingh Chaubey is mentioned at two places that is serial No.249 and 253 but at both the places roll number shown is different one is G-20 and another is G670. In both the cases the submission of sports certificate is clearly mentioned. It is no doubt true that Rahul Kumar Chubey, Son of Narsingh Chaubey is mentioned at two places that is serial No.249 and 253 but at both the places roll number shown is different one is G-20 and another is G670. In both the cases the submission of sports certificate is clearly mentioned. It is not necessary at this stage to examine as to how and what manner twice the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. The fact remains that in both the cases submission of sports certificate has been mentioned. C.A.5, which is the combined list of the candidates who appeared for interview, no candidate with Roll No.G-20 has been mentioned. The petitioner has not said in para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit that the photocopy of the sports certificate filed as Annexure C.A.4 does not belong him but what he says that he had not filed the same at the time of his selection. This Court, therefore, has no reason to doubt that the petitioner did possess a sports certificate. Though he has claimed that neither in his application form he has mentioned any fact about the sport certificate nor he submitted any such certificate but in respect to the said certificate, which is available on record of the respondents, it is not the case of the petitioner, either in the writ petition, or in the rejoinder affidavit, particularly paras 16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition, and 17 of the rejoinder affidavit, that the certificate did not relate to him. If the marks awardable to sport certificate are deducted, it is also evident that the petitioner could not have been called for interview. Hence the appointment is clearly illegal. The mere fact that the sport certificate even if submitted by the petitioner is found to be invalid, but if otherwise his appointment would have been within the province of law, this Court may have taken a view in favour of the petitioner but where the selection of the petitioner appears to be clearly benefited by the sports certificate, the said certificate having been found forged and fictitious, nothing can come to rescue of the petitioner in a case where termination consequential to the above proof of forgery in sport certificate is assailed. 10. One more aspect, however, needs to be considered. 10. One more aspect, however, needs to be considered. The petitioner submitted that he was awarded 23 marks on the basis of his educational qualification. The petitioner passed High School in the year 2002 in IIIrd division with grace having secured 251 marks out of 600, and Intermediate examination in 2004 in first division securing 309 out of 500. Rule 5(3)(a) of 2002 Rules, as amended in 2003, shows where the qualification is Intermediate, the incumbent having passed Intermediate with 60% marks shall be awarded 20 marks. The petitioner, therefore, being intermediate with more 60% marks could be awarded 20 marks on the basis of his educational qualification. As already said, three marks he obtained on the basis of sports certificate otherwise he could not have been called for interview. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how he could have been awarded more than 20 marks merely on the basis of his educational qualification of Intermediate under the aforesaid Rules. 12. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 17. When the matter is considered in the light of settled proposition of law, I find no force in this writ petition. Though there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no material, as no witness was examined in the enquiry, but when this is considered in view of the admitted position, this Courts finds its inability to accept this contention. It is true that it is for the prosecution to prove allegations and hold the employee of guilty of the charge, but at the same time, it is also well settled, that admitted facts need not be proved. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was not 8th standard passed. If this so, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. It is also well settled that civil proceedings are decided on probabilities, it would have been different matter in case minimum qualification for the post was not 8th standard passed. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he was not 8th standard passed. If this so, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. It is also well settled that civil proceedings are decided on probabilities, it would have been different matter in case minimum qualification for the post was not 8th standard passed. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, holding the petitioner guilty, as he was the beneficiary of wrong entries made in the service register, which would could be done only at the instance of the petitioner and none else. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason, that it is not disputed by the petitioner that the service register was in the knowledge of the petitioner. 18. Not only this, the main reason for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges is that in absence of certificate as recorded in the service register, the petitioner would not have been eligible for appointment, as the qualification prescribed for Office Assistant is middle pass, and the petitioner is admittedly not having requisite qualification. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry can be held after 18 years is also of no consequence, as the petitioner was charge sheeted immediately on receipt of complaint, alleging that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of forged certificate. 20. In view of the settled law, no compassion can be shown to the petitioner merely because the petitioner worked for 18 years in the department, on the basis of forged certificate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of termination was not passed by the competent authority also cannot be sustained, as the order was passed by the appointing authority, i.e. the Joint Director, who was holding the post at relevant time. 21. For the reason stated herein-above, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.