Judgment 1. The case of the petitioner is that she joined as Children Welfare Organizer, with effect from 15.12.1972 under the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner passed S.S.L.C., and promoted as Rural Welfare Officer. On 03.09.2003, the first respondent issued a charge memo stating that SSLC certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be bogus. Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation. The petitioner, on 23.09.2003, submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was orally prevented from attending the duty. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3579 of 2003, which was disposed of, on 03.11.2003, directing the respondents to take action either permitting the petitioner to work in the office or place her under suspension. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear, on 15.12.2003, before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner sought for copy of the communication forwarded by the fourth respondent to the first respondent. However, the copy of the document sought for by the petitioner was not furnished. The petitioner, reserving her rights, appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted her explanation. In the meantime, by a communication, dated 17.03.2004, the second respondent directed the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why she approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner also offered her explanation for the same. However, by proceedings, dated 12.02.2007, the petitioner was suspended from service. 3. Aggrieved over the order of suspension, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10067 of 2007. This Court, by order, dated 20.03.2007, granted an order of interim stay. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was permitted to join duty, on 30.04.2007. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued a communication, dated 25.06.2007, seeking further explanation from the petitioner on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent, without satisfying the explanation given by the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal from service, by his proceedings, dated 29.08.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (MD).No.7980 of 2007. The first respondent, without satisfying the explanation given by the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal from service, by his proceedings, dated 29.08.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (MD).No.7980 of 2007. This Court, by order, dated 28.06.2011, while setting aside the impugned order of dismissal from service, observed that the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by the report of the Enquiry Officer and further observed that as the petitioner had already retired from service, it is needless to say that the entire benefits has to be settled to her, if the authorities are not intending to take action, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the first respondent, by proceedings, dated 23.12.2011, removed the petitioner from service. The said order of the first respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for copies of certain documents, which were not furnished to her, and hence, non-supply of documents to the delinquent would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent and the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth her case effectively. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, makes reliance upon the following Judgments:- (i) D. Vincent Vs. The Director of Government Examinations, [W.A.No.320 of 1979, dated 19.06.1985]; (ii) J. Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare, [W.P.[MD].No.7106 of 2008; and (iii) Ponnuthai Vs. The Director, Social Welfare Department, [W.P.[MD].No.3023 of 2011, dated 01.10.2012] and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of removal from service with appropriate directions. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would make an attempt to sustain the impugned order of removal from service, contending that the first respondent, taking into consideration of all the relevant materials available on record, passed the impugned order of removal from service, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. The charge against the petitioner is that she produced bogus SSLC certificate to claim promotion. It is the bounden duty of the respondents to verify the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time when she was given promotion. But, the respondents have failed to do so. The petitioner produced such certificate in the year 1995 and she was given promotion in the year 1998 and there is no reason for the respondents to wait for eight years and to issue charge memo, subsequent suspension order, order of dismissal and lastly the order of removal from service. 8. This Court, in J. Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare, [W.P.[MD].No.7106 of 2008], considered the similar issue and set aside the order of dismissal from service and held as follows:- "8. In the present case, the petitioner has the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before any punishment of removal is imposed on her. Since the basic principles of natural justice are violated, the impugned order is hereby set aside and it is observed that the Government cannot wake up to the situation after 13 years after the promotion of the petitioner at the end of her service. Therefore, there is no further direction to conduct enquiry." 9. In Ponnuthai Vs. The Director, Social Welfare Department, [W.P.[MD].No.3023 of 2011, dated 01.10.2012], this Court, taking into consideration of the Judgment in J. Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare, [W.P.[MD].No.7106 of 2008], held as follows:- "A specific averment has been made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the copy of the letter of the respondent No.4 has not been furnished to the petitioner. There is no material to substantiate that the said averment is false, more so no counter has been filed to contradict the same. Both the enquiry officer and respondent No.1 proceeded as if it is for the petitioner to prove the certificate as true and genuine. In a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges against the delinquent. A perusal of the order impugned would show that the entire onus has been fixed on the petitioner. Both the enquiry officer and respondent No.1 proceeded as if it is for the petitioner to prove the certificate as true and genuine. In a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges against the delinquent. A perusal of the order impugned would show that the entire onus has been fixed on the petitioner. Apart from that, the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity as in the case of the judgment relied on by the petitioner. There is absolutely no other material except the letter from the respondent No.4, which by itself cannot be taken as a proof against the petitioner. It is also seen that except the petitioner, nobody was examined. The petitioner being an employee of the respondent No.1, is entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above said submissions, this Court is of the view that the writ petition will have to be allowed. This Court is also of the view that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter at this length of time. The petitioner is a poor lady. She has attained the age of superannuation. The impugned order has been passed nearly after 12 years from the date of promotion. As discussed above, it is not as if the initial entry of the petitioner was wrong. She has been allowed to continue in the promotional post from the year 1995 onwards. It is also not as if she has not done her job properly. Therefore, considering the above said facts, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for will have to be suitably modified while setting aside the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the order impugned is hereby set aside and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to compute the retiral benefits due to the petitioner as if she has worked till 29.02.2008, the due date of retirement and pay the same to her within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, this petitioner is not entitled to get salary from the date of dismissal till due date of retirement." 10. However, this petitioner is not entitled to get salary from the date of dismissal till due date of retirement." 10. Following the said Judgments, the impugned order of removal from service passed by the first respondent, dated 23.12.2011, is set aside and the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs.