ORDER 1. W.P. No. 9540 of 2008 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to his proceedings made in Na. Ka. 1315/Aal/06 dated 23.10.2007 as confirmed by the first respondent pursuant to his proceedings made in Na. Ka. 1315/Aal/2006 dated 05.12.2007 and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid and consequently for a direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as driver by fixing his higher scale of pay with all increments and allowances together with all service and monetary benefits besides suitable compensation as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of which the petitioner had faced multiple punishment orders for the same delinquency without having a fair opportunity of hearing. W.P. No. 9541 of 2008 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent relating to his proceedings made in Na. Ka. 1315/Aal/2005 dated 18.07.2006 as confirmed by the first respondent pursuant to his proceedings made in Na. Ka. 1315/Aal/2006 dated 05.12.2007 without any whisper about the petitioner's appeal challenging the punishment, reduction to a lower post and quash the same as null and void, illegal and invalid in so far as the punishment reduction to a lower post is concerned and consequently for a direction to the second respondent to restore the petitioner's promotional post Driver with scale of pay as paid on 18.07.2006 and pay all increments, allowances and all service and monetary benefits entitled to by the Petitioner. Since the petitioner is common, both the writ petitions are being taken up for disposal by a common order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he passed 6th standard in June 1976 and thereafter he was promoted to 7th standard, but he discontinued 7th standard, that the petitioner registered his 6th standard certificate along with his heavy motor vehicle driving licence in the Employment Exchange for employment purposes; that he was appointed as Office Assistant cum Driver on 01.03.1989 based on his qualification, namely 6th standard pass and since he was having experience in driving and as he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, he was appointed. At the time of his appointment, for the post of Driver, the minimum qualification was a pass in 5th standard. At the time of his appointment, for the post of Driver, the minimum qualification was a pass in 5th standard. His appointment order was issued by the second respondent after thorough verification of his original certificates, namely 6th standard pass and 7th standard rand discontinuation certificate issued by TCK High School, Padanthalumood, fitness certificate issued by the Government Doctor attached to KTC Hospital branch, Out Patient Department and the heavy motor vehicle driving licence issued by the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner further state that he has not suppressed any material fact and he has not forged any document. He further stated that because of the sincerity and efficiency in service, particularly in driving, he was promoted as driver on 01.10.1989, but no appointment order was given. He further stated that his initial appointment was made as Office Assistant cum Driver and the services were fully utilised as a driver. He further stated that he was paid salary applicable to the post of Office Assistant but his services have been fully utilised as a driver in the leave vacancy. However, on promotion as driver, he was paid salary applicable to the post of driver. While things stood thus, the second respondent has issued a Charge Memo dated 17.06.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules framing the following charges:- (i) Jayakumar Jayasekhar has produced wrongful certificate for getting employment as temporary Office Assistant in the Teacher Recruitment Board. (ii) Failed to produce the original certificates, inspite of providing sufficient time. (iii) Secured promotion as driver within a period of one year from the date of his appointment as Office Assistant. 3. The petitioner further stated that he has submitted an explanation expressing his innocence and the explanation was rejected and one Mr. P. Mani, Additional Member, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer thus appointed, has conducted the enquiry without following the mandatory provisions and without complying with principles of natural justice. In the enquiry, the petitioner has not produced 8th standard certificate, but produced only the Transfer Certificate mentioning his pass in the 6th standard apart from his discontinuation from 7th standard. According to him, by oversight, in his Service Book, some of the Subordinate Officers have entered that he has passed 8th standard. In the enquiry, the petitioner has not produced 8th standard certificate, but produced only the Transfer Certificate mentioning his pass in the 6th standard apart from his discontinuation from 7th standard. According to him, by oversight, in his Service Book, some of the Subordinate Officers have entered that he has passed 8th standard. Petitioner further stated that the faults committed by the second respondent and his officials are purely on the part of the department and the blame cannot be shifted as if the petitioner has committed a grave error. The petitioner has also admitted that he was unable to produce the original certificates when asked for by the second respondent. The petitioner further stated that the second respondent has approached the school authorities and collected the details that the petitioner had passed only 6th standard and obtained a duplicate certificate to that effect. Unfortunately, the Enquiry Officer, namely the third respondent held that the charges were proved and has arrived at a perverse finding, without any material, either oral or documentary evidence, and completely shifted the burden on the petitioner without even complying with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has further stated that the promotion was given to him by the second respondent and even assuming that the promotion was contrary to the rules, the respondents should have ascertained the educational qualification of the petitioner and there is no justification on the part of the respondents to ascertain the educational qualification after a period of 18 years of appointment. The Enquiry Officer, without ascertaining the true facts, has came to the conclusion and arrived at a finding based on the entries made in the petitioner's service book, which according to him, have not been entered by the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that no witness has been examined to prove the charges. He further stated that on 18.07.2006, after the perverse finding, a final order has been passed awarding punishment of a reduction to a lower post and he was demoted as Office Assistant from the post of Driver. Thereafter, by another order dated 23.10.2007, the petitioner was dismissed from the services for the very same charges. He further stated that on 18.07.2006, after the perverse finding, a final order has been passed awarding punishment of a reduction to a lower post and he was demoted as Office Assistant from the post of Driver. Thereafter, by another order dated 23.10.2007, the petitioner was dismissed from the services for the very same charges. Since the punishment was awarded earlier, challenging the improper reversion order and illegal dismissal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 01.11.2007 to the first respondent, who in turn confirmed the order of punishment of dismissal by a non-speaking order without considering the order of reversion dated 18.07.2006. Petitioner stated that he has been made a scapegoat and that his fundamental rights, especially Article 20(2) and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India have been fragrantly violated. Hence the petitioner prayed that both the punishments should be set aside, as the enquiry is farce and on the principle that one cannot be punished twice for the same offence. He further stated that his driving licence has not been returned with the sole object that after dismissal from service, the petitioner should not seek employment privately to eke out his livelihood and hence the first respondent refused to exercise its appellate power in setting at naught the illegal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on the perverse report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner stated that he hails from a poor family and he is suffering from heart and kidney ailments and also wheezing and orthopaedic illness. The petitioner further stated that he has not produced any false certificate and that the minimum qualification for the post of Office Assistant was 4th standard pass in 1989, when he was appoinited and that the rule prescribing minimum qualification as 8th standard has been amended only in 2001 with effect from 1989. The learned counsel submitted that the rules cannot be amended retrospectively and in any event, the benefits accrued to the petitioner on the date of his joining service cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. The learned counsel submitted that the rules cannot be amended retrospectively and in any event, the benefits accrued to the petitioner on the date of his joining service cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. As the petitioner has fulfilled the basic qualification for appointment to the post of Office Assistant cum Driver, after two decades, framing a charge on the allegation that the petitioner has produced false certificate and that he has not produced the original certificates and that he earned promotion immediately after joining services, are all not warranted, more particularly, when the promotion was given at the instance of the management and for which he cannot be blamed. 4. The Government filed a detailed counter in W.P. No. 9541 of 2008 and submitted that the counter filed may be adopted in the other writ petition also. While reiterating the counter averments, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the case of the respondents is that the Teachers Recruitment Board, in 1989, to fill up a vacancy of Office Assistant, requested the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates possessing requisite qualification to the said post. Accordingly, the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with others. After interview, the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant based on the sponsorship from Employment Exchange and he joined the duty on 01.03.1989. Thereafter, as the post of driver was vacant, his name was considered and appointed to the said post as he was possessing heavy motor vehicle driving licence. In the meantime, vide G.O. No. 160, School Education Department, dated 27.09.2001, the Government issued adhoc rules to regularise the services of the temporary posts. Accordingly, action was taken by the Teachers Recruitment Board to regularise the services of the temporary staff working in its administration. All the staff working temporarily were asked to produce the original certificates for perusal and consideration. Except the petitioner, all other staff produced the original certificates for perusal and their services were regularised. The petitioner, in spite of reminders, failed to submit the certificates and finally represented that he had lost the original certificates and produced a copy of the complaint lodged by him before the police to trace out the said certificates. Since the petitioner has not produced the evidence of his qualification, he was asked to mention the name and address of the school where he had studied. Since the petitioner has not produced the evidence of his qualification, he was asked to mention the name and address of the school where he had studied. The Board has sent a letter dated 03.03.2005 to TCK Higher Secondary School, Padanthalumode, Kanyakumari District to furnish the extract of the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner for perusal and the school forwarded Transfer Certificate issued to Jayakumar Jayasekhar, namely the petitioner in the writ petition. From that certificate, it was found that the petitioner has studied only up to 7th standard and not promoted to 8th standard. According to the Government, as per the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service amended in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1962, Public (Ser-G) dated 25.06.1971, the requisite qualification for the post of Office Assistant, classified under Class III of Tamil Nadu Basic Service, is a pass in III Form or a pass in VIII Standard or a pass in ESLC. The petitioner, not having acquired any of the above qualifications, became ineligible both for the post of driver, for which he was promoted and for the feeder category, namely the Office Assistant. The Government reiterated that the petitioner name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the post of Office Assistant and he was appointed in the feeder category, namely Office Assistant. The Employment Officer, on enquiry informed the respondents that petitioner registered his name in Employment Exchange, Nagercoil on 06.06.1984 for Heavy Motor Vehicle Licence and subsequently transferred his registration to Chennai Employment Exchange. He had also informed that according to the entry in the office, it appears that Jayakumar Jayashekar has passed 8th standard and in that regard certain clarifications from DEO, Nagercoil and DEO, Adyar, Chennai, were sought for. As per the rules, since the requisite qualification for the post of Office Assistant, being 8th standard pass, the Employment Exchange would have sponsored the petitioner only after ascertaining his qualification. When the school authorities were contacted and details have been obtained, then only it came to light that the petitioner has not passed even 8th standard, which is a requisite qualification for the post of office assistant. Hence it came to light that a bogus certificate has been produced in the Employment Exchange at the time of registration. When the school authorities were contacted and details have been obtained, then only it came to light that the petitioner has not passed even 8th standard, which is a requisite qualification for the post of office assistant. Hence it came to light that a bogus certificate has been produced in the Employment Exchange at the time of registration. Since the petitioner has concealed the qualification and have obtained an appointment by producing false certificate, disciplinary action under Section 17(b) was rightly contemplated for the three charges mentioned supra. 5. With regard to the first charge, the respondents submitted that there is a lame excuse for not producing the documents. The Employment Exchange would not have sponsored the name of the petitioner, if he had mentioned that he had not passed 8th standard while registering his name in the Employment Exchange. Hence a fraud has taken place at the initial stage itself. The other charge is that he has not produced the original certificates inspite of repeated reminders. Instead of producing the original certificates, he has produced a complaint lodged to the police station that he has lost originals and the petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain duplicate copy of the certificates. Instead he proceeded on frequent leaves. Although he had obtained the duplicate Transfer Certificate on 05.04.2005, he produced it only on 20.07.2005 i.e. after the disciplinary action was initiated against him. With regard to the third charge that the petitioner was promoted as driver before regularisation in the feeder category, before discussing the other charges in question, this court observed that it is a mistake on the part of the second respondent in promoting the petitioner to the post of driver, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The respondents further submitted that at the time of promotion to the post of driver he could have informed the higher authorities that he did not possess the requisite qualification. Only in the oral enquiry on 17.04.2006, the petitioner admitted that he discontinued standard VII and he produced the same at the time of interview conducted in the feeder category. The petitioner made a representation to consider his case before passing any final orders. Only in the oral enquiry on 17.04.2006, the petitioner admitted that he discontinued standard VII and he produced the same at the time of interview conducted in the feeder category. The petitioner made a representation to consider his case before passing any final orders. Though charges are proved against the petitioner, considering the age, services rendered by him and the family circumstances, the final orders were passed to reduction to a lower post from the date of issue of the order, namely 18.07.2006. The Teachers Recruitment Board under letter to the Government explaining the proved charges and the decision of the Board to exempt the petitioner for acquiring the requisite qualification, considering his age, service and family circumstances, treating it as a special case and to permit him to continue in the post of office assistant in the feeder category. However, the Government informed the Board that exemption could not be granted to petitioner, who was erroneously promoted and reverted to the post of Office Assistant, has got his appointment by producing bogus certificates. In the light of the orders of the government, based on the proved charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The respondents further stated after an opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish his innocence, as there was no other go except to impose the order of dismissal of the petitioner for producing bogus certificates in getting appointment, the impugned order came to be passed and hence the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merit. 6. Heard both sides. 7. For the sake of convenience, the educational qualification for the post of office assistant in Tamil Nadu Basic Service as per G.O. Ms. No. 160, School Education (Q2) Department dated 27th September 2001, is extracted as follows:- "Educational Qualification – No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post by direct recruitment unless he has passed the III Form or VII Standard or the ESLC in a recognised institution." 8. From the materials produced before this court, it is clear that the petitioner does not hold a basic qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. Therefore, it is admitted case that he has not been qualified to be appointed to the post of Office Assistant. From the materials produced before this court, it is clear that the petitioner does not hold a basic qualification to be considered for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. Therefore, it is admitted case that he has not been qualified to be appointed to the post of Office Assistant. The Employment Exchange would not have sponsored the name of the petitioner if he has not registered his qualification as 8th standard pass. In spite of repeated requests by the Department, the petitioner has produced only the duplicate copy, that too belatedly. Even though the promotion to the post of driver has been given, it will not give a right to him, as the petitioner does not possess the basic qualification to be appointed as office assistant. When the foundation itself is gone, the entirety will have to fall to the ground. The petitioner has admitted that he has not qualified to the feeder category post. After a detailed enquiry, the charges have been proved and he has been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service. Admittedly, there are two orders as contended by the petitioner. The government decided to impose a lesser punishment taking into account the services rendered by him. However, the Government has not accepted for lesser punishment on the ground that the petitioner did not have basic qualification to be appointed as office assistant and he got his appointment by producing bogus certificates. In such circumstances, the order came to be passed. This court finds that the dismissal order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Even assuming for the sake of convenience that the petitioner has not committed misconduct, as admitted by the petitioner, he does not possess the minimum qualification required to be appointed to the post of office assistant. The contention that he was promoted to the post of driver not at his instance, but by the respondents themselves, cannot be accepted at all. I do not find much force in the contention of the petitioner and the writ petitions are deserve to be rejected for devoid of merits. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.