Judgment 1. W.P(MD)No.3117 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.42051/Nir5-3/2003 dated 24.08.2007 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider that the petitioner had deemed to have retired from 31.03.2007 and pay all future benefits. 2. W.P(MD)No.3118 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47173/Nir5(3)/2003 dated 09.04.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits and pass other further order from 09.04.2008. 3. W.P(MD)No.3470 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.63866/Nir3(2)/1998 dated 22.07.2003 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits. 4. W.P(MD)No.4720 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.80061/Nir 5-3/99, dated 29.08.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and terminal benefits. 5. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order. 6. The case of the petitioners is that they joined as Children Welfare Organizer (Bala Sevika) under the first respondent. Thereafter, they had completed the their S.S.L.C. examination as private candidates. Subsequent to the same, they were promoted as the Rural Welfare Officers (W). While so, they were issued with the charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, stating that on verification with the fourth respondent, the S.S.L.C., certificates produced by the petitioners were reported to be forged ones. Thereafter, they submitted their explanations to the first respondent, who, had not satisfied with the same and directed the petitioners to appear for enquiry. Based on the communication sent by the fourth respondent, the first respondent found that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and passed the impugned orders of termination. The relevant details pertaining to the petitioners, could be set out thus: Sl. No. W.P. (MD) Nos. Based on the communication sent by the fourth respondent, the first respondent found that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and passed the impugned orders of termination. The relevant details pertaining to the petitioners, could be set out thus: Sl. No. W.P. (MD) Nos. Name of the Petitioner(s) Date of Joining as C.W.O. Month of Pass in S.S.L.C. Date of Impugned Order(s) 1 3117 of 2011 A. Vijayalakshmi 15.08.1972 October, 1993 24.08.2007 2 3118 of 2011 V. Kesammal 15.08.1972 October, 1993 09.04.2008 3 3470 of 2011 P. Pounuthai 19.04.1976 October, 1994 22.07.2003 4 4720 of 2011 D. Sakunthala 22.05.1979 October, 1993 29.08.2007 Challenging the impugned orders of termination, they have come forward with the above writ petitions. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue in the present writ petitions, is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai, and others, [W.P(MD)No.15932 of 2012, decided on 09.06.2014], and hence, he prayed for similar relief to the petitioners herein also. 8. No counter affidavit is forthcoming from the respondents denying the allegations of the petitioners. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. This Court, in the judgment in Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai, and others, [W.P(MD)No.15932 of 2012, decided on 09.06.2014], has passed the following order: "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. 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, moreso 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. 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. 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. 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." 11. A deep glance over the same would undoubtedly reveal that the case of the petitioners herein is identical to that of the petitioner therein and this Court is of the considered view that such relief could also be given to the petitioners herein. 12. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs." 11. A deep glance over the same would undoubtedly reveal that the case of the petitioners herein is identical to that of the petitioner therein and this Court is of the considered view that such relief could also be given to the petitioners herein. 12. Following the same, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of removal from service passed by the first respondent, as against all the petitioners, are set aside and the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits payable to the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.3117, 3118 and 3470 of 2011, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.4720 of 2011 is concerned, she would attain the age of superannuation only on 11.05.2015 and hence, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders granting the similar relief to her as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.