JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6450/99/C1 dated 10.08.2005, Proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.58691-2006/DB1 dated 29.11.2006 and the order of the 1st respondent passed in foj vz; 38791-eg/3-2010?7, dated 05.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.) 1. The writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the order of dismissal from Municipal service dated 10.08.2005 and the appellate order dated 29.11.2006 and the review order dated 05.12.2013. 2. The writ petitioner states that he studied upto S.S.L.C and appointed on compassionate ground at Chidambaram Municipality. The father of the petitioner was working as Salaipaniyalar Gand Mazdoor and he died while he was in service. Thus the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner furnished certificates at the time of appointment and the authorities during verification found certain discrepancies in the certificate produced by the writ petitioner and accordingly send the same for verification. On verification, the authorities found that the educational certificate produced by the writ petitioner was forged one and thereafter initiated action. In view of the fact that the educational certificate produced by the writ petitioner was found to be forged, he was dismissed from service. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that the Headmaster who issued the certificate was not examined in view of the fact that he was no more during the relevant point of time when the enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was a minor when the certificate was obtained from the School. Under those circumstances, the petitioner cannot be blamed or penalized if at all any mistake occurred. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father and therefore, he is entitled to continue in service. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent disputed the said contention by stating that the petitioner submitted a forged educational certificate. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and for the purpose of securing appointment, he produced a forged certificate and during verification, the authorities found that the petitioner had not studied VIII Standard. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent disputed the said contention by stating that the petitioner submitted a forged educational certificate. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and for the purpose of securing appointment, he produced a forged certificate and during verification, the authorities found that the petitioner had not studied VIII Standard. The petitioner was provided with opportunity and he attended the enquiry on 18.04.2005 to examine the witness to prove the certificate produced by him in support of the educational qualification. The petitioner availed the opportunities provided by the respondents. The Headmaster of the School concerned attended the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer with all relevant records, further time was also granted to the writ petitioner to establish the certificate, however, the petitioner did not produced any materials to establish the genuinity of the certificate produced by him for the purpose of securing the appointment. 5. Counter has been filed by the third respondent wherein it has been stated as follows: 8. In the presence of the above educational officials and the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted on 09.08.2005. The certificate bearing registration No.670 produced by the petitioner was taken up for enquiry with reference to the original records. As per the records of the School Registration No.670 is in the name of one Thiru.Pandian S/o.Kanajamalai, 33/1 Sambanthakara Street, Chidambaram The occupation of the parents: Carpentary Date of Admission: 25.07.1985 Date of Birth: 15.05.1980 Case: Hindu, Kammalar Class Joined: 1st Standard Date of Leaving: 10.05.1993, VIII Pass However as per the certificate produced y the petitioner contains the following details Name: Thiru.R.Veeramuthu, S/o.Rajamanickam, 27E Ramalinga Adigal Street, Chidambaram Date of Birth: 21.05.1980 Caste: Hindu, Adi Dravidar Occupation: Coolie Date of Admission: 25.07.1985 Registration NO.670 VIII Promoted Date of Leaving: 20.05.1994 On scrutiny of the school records it was found that the petitioner's name is recorded in Registration No.1098 with the following details Name: R.Veeramuthu S/o.Rajamanickam 27/E, Ramalinga Adigal Street, Chidambaram Occupation: Coolie Date of Admission: 02.06.1992 Date of Birth: 05.06.1982 Caste: Hindu Adidravidar Class admitted: VI Previous School: TELC Middle School, Chidambaram Date of leaving: 15.10.1993 Reason: Long Absence. 9. From the above, it was evident that the certificate produced by the petitioner was false. The Headmaster who issued the certificate could not be examined since he was dead. 9. From the above, it was evident that the certificate produced by the petitioner was false. The Headmaster who issued the certificate could not be examined since he was dead. On the other hand the Registration and records of the school was very much clear that the Registration Number 670 that was claimed by the petitioner is not in his name and furthermore his name is in Registration Number 1098, that also showed that the petitioner did not even pass 6th Standard. Thus the fact that the petitioner had resorted to obtain a forged certificate to get employment was proved beyond any doubt. Since the charges were proved and confirmed that he does not possess the necessary educational qualification for the post of chain man he was dismissed from Municipal service with effect from 10.08.2005 AN vide proceedings No.6450/99/C1 dated 10.08.2005 of the Commissioner, Chidambaram Municipality.” 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds, the educational certificate submitted by the writ petitioner at the time of appointment was found to be forged and an enquiry was conducted, the writ petitioner participated in the enquiry and in his presence, the educational certificate produced by the petitioner was verified with the original records produced by the educational authorities. Thus the writ petitioner was provided with opportunity as contemplated and he could not be able to establish that the educational certificate produced by him was genuine. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal from service issued by the original authority which was confirmed by the appellate authority and review authority. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.