K. Uthayalakshmi vs The Superintending Engineer, Udumalpet Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

N. Kirubakaran, J.—A ""compassionate appointment"" was taken away without ""COMPASSION"" by the officials. The Job was feeding the

family of an young widow, who lost her husband, when she was hardly 24 years old with two minor children to be looked after. It is very

unfortunate that the Petitioner has to knock the doors of this Court for her livelihood. The Petitioner should not have been driven to the Court by

the officials who exhibited neither compassion nor care of the deceased employee''s family who died in harness.

The Petitioner is challenging the order of her dismissal from the post of ""Trainee Helper"" by the second Respondent on the ground that, the

Petitioner produced bogus educational qualification certificate for getting compassionate appointment due to death of her husband. The Petitioner''s

husband Mr. M. Easwaramoorthy working as Wire Man in the First Respondent Board, died on 15.04.2005, while he was in service. The

Petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Mr. M. Easwaramoorthy, was aged about 24 years having two female children who are aged about 7

years and 3 years old and also 62 years old mother of the deceased employee. She was appointed as helper in the first Respondent Board, as she

studied up to VIII Standard. Before appointment, the School certificate was verified by the concerned Educational Authorities and also by the

School. The School gave a Certificate stating that she produced the genuine certificate. A complaint, was given stating that she studied only in

Government Higher Secondary School at Oottanchattiram, Dindugal District and that she did not pass VIII standard and that she did not study up

to 8th standard in Muthamizh Aided Middle School, Rasipuaram. Based on that, a charge memo dated 09.04.2009 was issued for which a reply

was given by the Petitioner on 27.05.2009. An enquiry was conducted and by report dated 05.09.2009 two charges, out of three charges were

said to have been proved. A Second Show Cause Notice was issued on 31.10.2009 and a reply was given on 25.11.2009 and thereafter she was

removed from service on 21.01.2010. Challenging the same, the Petitioner is now before this Court.

Heard Mr. C.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.Vasudevan, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was appointed on 05.06.2006 on compassionate ground. Before appointment, the certificates of the Petitioner were properly

verified. The Original Certificate issued by the Muthamizh Aided Middle School, Rasipuram was produced before the first Respondent, who sent it

for verification to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal who in turn confirmed the genuiness of the certificate through letter dated

26.09.2005. The Head Master of the School also by his letter dated 08.09.2005 informed the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer that on

comparison with the original school records, the certificate was found to be genuine.

Subsequently, it is stated that a complaint was given regarding the genuiness of the certificate and the same was dropped after enquiry.

Thereafter, the first Respondent re-opened the enquiry based on another anonymous letter stating that the Petitioner did not study in Rasipuram

School and did not pass the VIII Standard and she studied only in the Government Higher Secondary School, Oottanchattiram. Based on that

only, the impugned order was passed.

Once the certificate was verified by the Respondents through the Educational authorities and genuiness of the certificate was proved, and the

verification preceded the appointment, the first Respondent should not have re-opened the issue at all. In this regard, there is a Board proceeding

dated 06.09.2003. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said Board proceeding are extracted as follows:

3) The Educational Qualifications certificates of the applicant have already been verified with the concerned Educational authorities by the

respective Superintending Engineers and the proposals are being received at Administrative Branch for further scrutiny and selection of eligible

hands. Accordingly selection / allotment orders are issued from this office for issuing appointment orders by the Superintending Engineers.

4) Inasmuch as the Genuineness Certificate are already verified, the same need not be done at the time of issue of appointment cum reposting

orders by the Superintending Engineers.

5) The Superintending Engineers concerned are informed that when the applicant reports for duty based on the appointment orders issued by

them, the Officers concerned has to verify only the Originals Educational Qualification certificates and he should satisfy himself and then allow the

individual to joint duty.

When there is a Board proceeding the Respondents / Board are not expected to follow without violating the same, unless and otherwise, the said

proceeding is varied or cancelled. Therefore, the second enquiry itself is not warranted. In view of that, the order of dismissal based on the second

enquiry is liable to be set aside.

Irrespective of that, the fact remains that the Petitioner only got helper post to maintain her family, that too, on compassionate ground. When the

appointment is made on compassionate ground, the Respondents are not expected to go strictly by the Rules, especially, with regard to

educational qualification of the Petitioner.

It is seen that the Petitioner is from lower strata of the society and one cannot expect qualified persons from the family of a wire man. In these

circumstances, strict application of educational qualification is unwarranted. As the nomenclature ""compassionate"" suggests, the matter should be

approached very compassionately and liberally or not otherwise. The Respondents should have thought of the family of the deceased employee,

leaving behind an young widow with two minor children, who are aged about 7 years and 3 years and an aged mother and should not have

dismissed the Petitioner from service.

The approach of the Respondents have to be condemned and deprecated. The post obtained is a ''helper'' and not any higher post. The

Petitioner should not have been driven to come to this Court by wrong and rigid approach of the Respondent. The Respondents should have

protected the family of the employee who died in harness, like a hen protecting its chick by its wings. On the other hand, an adverse proceeding

has been initiated based on an anonymous letter with a Xerox Copy of the Certificate. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the person, who

wrote anonymous letter attended the enquiry and withdrew his complaint. If that is the position, the enquiry should have been closed at that stage

itself and the proceedings should have been dropped.

The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of the Chief Engineer / Personnel Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai ? 2 and Anr. v.

K.Lakshmi, reported in 2005 WLR 256 condemned the approach of the Electricity Board in the compassionate appointment. Paragraph 4 of the

judgment which reads as follows:

We fully agree with the learned single Judge that the Electricity Board should consider the application of the writ Petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds on mertis and in accordance with law and without reference to the educational qualification as she is a widow with five

children. In fact we feel that the Electricity Board should have itself taken a humanitarian and sympathetic approach towards the writ Petitioner

since her husband was their employee, and should not have compelled her to come to Court. The Electricity Board should behave like an ideal

employer who looks after its employees and takes care of the widows and children of its employees who die in harness. In that way it will get

respect and regard of its employees as well as the public.

The Respondents are directed to re-instate the Petitioner with all benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No. costs.

Call the matter on 1st September 2011 for compliance. Though, the Petitioner has to succeed with cost, this Court is not awarding any cost in

the Petitioner''s own interest.