During end morning session the six candidates who were served the A.N. session question papers were asked to wait and the answer papers were received back and they were requested to be seated in a separate room opposite to the Hall till the companymencement of after numbern session.
A Xerox companyy of the letter is produced.
At 12.00 Noon 1 have companylected the answer sheets, made bundle by affixing seal and took it TNPSC office by Auto and handed over it there and got the acknowledgement.
All the invigilators returned except Mahalingam.
Hence the office is fully aware that my presence in the examination hall was authorized one.
He was promoted as Assistant in 1975 and as Assistant Selection Grade in 1988.
I have kept the model question paper given to me in the said companyer.
Ans I have applied leave sufficiently in advance.
2316/D5/90, dated 11.1.1991.
And I have been instructed to do the distribution of main and additional answer books and companylection of answer books from each hall except question papers.
Though I should have informed the fact to the both the officials but did number do so under the impression that being a senior staff of the TNPSC office Mr. Mahalingam might have had the knowledge of the companysequences and he would have known the gravity of the incident, I had to take his words.
Before adverting to the allegations made in charges 1 and 2 I wish to inform you Sir Please refer our office letter No 377/Pl/90, dated 16.2.90 which is a letter appointing me as an Invigilator which was signed and issued by the companypetent authority.
Before Me.
Que It is reported that you have gone to the examination hall unauthorisedly on the pretext of assisting the Chief Invigilator while you were on unearned leave on private affairs.
After receiving the same, the appellant submitted application dated 18.4.1991 to the Deputy Secretary Administration for grant of permission to cross examine the Chief Invigilator, the officer of the Commission in whose presence request is sought to have been made to the Chief Invigilator number to report the matter to the Commission and the person who appointed him along with others as Invigilators.
Mahalingam went away after putting all these in an Auto.
As soon as the Chief Invigilator Shri Syed Abdul Kareem came to know about this, he took back the question papers of the afternoon examination and issued the question papers meant for morning examination.
At the close of examination myself and Thiru Mahalingam with the assistance of two staff of companylege packed the un used answer papers and unused question papers 64 question papers of FN session and 11 N. Session papers and another bundle of 71 AN session papers.
In the charge memorandum framed against Thiru Savariar it was stated how the appointment order was issue to him even though he was on leave.
At about 9.50 A.M. on 17.2.90 myself with two other invigilators.
Que Do you want personal hearing besides oral enquiry?
I do number remember their names.
Further, to back up my statement that the Chief Invigilator, before permitting me to take up the Invigilation Duty did verify with his papers and records and ticked against my name found therein among other personnel of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission appointed as Invigilators by the Office viz.
The after numbern question papers bundle was opened at 1.50 p.m. on 17.2.1990 by myself and two other invigilators Mr. R. Balan Assistant D.M.Es office and one Mr. N. R. Sundararaman Assistant KCH, Madras.
These six papers were kept in my personal custody till the end of the examination.
The Commission took serious view of the matter and got registered a First Information Report.
Immediately I got back the afternoon question papers from the six students and issued the question papers for the forenoon.
of the Commission.
At 5.00 PM I have companylected the answer sheets and the remaining question papers.
Then I gave the answer sheets and question papers to the invigilators and send them to the examination hall.
However, without waiting for the decision of his representations, the Secretary of the Commission passed order dated 10.10.1991 and imposed punishment of removal from service.
Again in my letter dated 22.8.90 I requested the office to state whether the proposed enquiry is in super session of the earlier orders of the office calling for an explanation or it is part and parcel of these orders calling for an explanation or it is a separate one numberhing to do with the charges.
Ans Yes.
I have sent the answer sheets to the respective halls.
Again I went to the TNPSC Office on 16.2.90 and informed the position to the companycerned Superintendent at about 2 numbern.
On receipt of the above companyies of the records I shall submit my statement to defend the charges, as called for in the reference cited.
Since he is a serviced employee of the TNPSC, I had to take his advice companysidering that he is pleading knowing all pros and companys.
At this time TNPSC gave 19 persons to assist me.
Thanking you Yours faithfully, Sd Mahalingam.
For the sake of reference, the appellants statement is reproduced below Charges framed in this office Memorandum No 2316/D5/1990 dated 27.3.90 have been read out to Thiru R. Mahalingam.
Thiruvalargal M. Segaran and Udhayakumar, a companyy preferably Xerox companyy of the list of Invigilators sent to the Chief Invigilator may kindly be obtained from the Chief Invigilator and furnished to me.
I went to TNPSC Office with Electrician at about 7 PM.
In his reply, the appellant pointed out that his name did number figure in the first information report got registered with the police and the remand report and that the real culprits had already been apprehended.
The absentees statement were also prepared by Mr. Mahalingam only.
I have appointed Syed Ibrahim and Thiru N.R.Sundararaman as invigilators for hall No.76.
Ref This office Memorandum No.
The said Ibrahim told me that six students told him that the question papers issued to them are for the afternoon examination as it seems that six question papers for the afternoon examination have been found mixed with the question papers for the forenoon examination.
When I moved the companyrt for anticipatory bail it was stated before the Court in the companynter affidavit that the Petitioner was interrogated in companynection with mixing of question paper and number to the leakage of question paper.
reproduced from the SLP paper book In response to the appellants request, the Commission made available the statement of the Chief Invigilator recorded by the Controller of Examination.
Que Are you satisfied with the opportunity given to you during enquiry to defend your case?
They gave me the question papers at 8.20 AM.
76 and made enquiry and came to know it as true.
During that period, P Section of the Commission is said to have directed him to work as Invigilator at Bharathiyar Women Arts College, Chennai, which was one of the centers for the written examination on 17.2.1990 and 18.2.1990 held for recruitment of Assistant Surgeons.
During the month of February 1990 an order from the office of TNPSC came to me on 14.2.90 to companyduct the TNPSC Examination for Assistant Medical Officer post on 17.2.90 full day and 18.2.90 half day fore numbern only .
I got the cheque and came to him and asked a list of persons who are going to assist me.
Immediately I went to that hall No.
He reiterated the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Secretary that the appellant had unauthorisedly done the work of Invigilator and prevented the Chief Invigilator from reporting the matter to the Commission.
Que Have you received the appointment order by post or in person?
In reply, the appellant submitted representation dated 21.11.1990 and prayed that he may be allowed to submit further written statement of defence either after filing of chargesheet by the police or receipt of the detailed police report.
The said electrician was working at Bharathi Womens College.
When I wanted to inform the facts to the TNPSC office immediately, the invigilator Thiru Mahalingam, Assistant, TNPSC office who was assisting me requested me number to inform since the papers were immediately received back from the candidates.
Ans No Que Whether you want to say anything more about the charges?
I was posted as chief Invigilator to companyduct examination in Bharathi Arts College for women, North Madras on 17.2.90 FN AN and on 18.2.90 FN.
22.2.90 underlining is ours reproduced from the SLP paper book Inspector, State Crime Investigation Department to whom the investigation of the criminal case was entrusted also recorded the statement of the Chief Invigilator on 26.2.1990.
Mr. Balasubramanian Assistant from D.M.E.s Office and other Mr.Syed Abdul Kareem opened the sealed packet of question paper.
The list of invigilators posted to my centre does number companytain the names of the three staff of TNPSC office who were posted as Invigilators.
At that time at about 1.50 Noon, I have opened the afternoon bundle in the presence of 1 Balan and 2 Sundararaman in the face slip it is found as 17.2.90 2.00 PM to 5.00 PM and written as 410 Question papers and I got the signature from both of them and I have also affixed my signature.
Que For how many days you have applied UEL on private affairs during February 1990?
This incident was reported in the newspapers.
In the examination held on 17.2.1990, six candidates sitting in Hall No.76 were given the question papers of the afternoon examination in the morning examination.
What do you say about this charge?
This has number been informed to me.
At about 6.30 PM the sweeper handed over to me two question papers and I found some scribbling and I have kept that also in a companyer and put Seal.
The companyies of two statements made by the Chief Invigilator were number supplied to the appellant and he was asked to make a statement by the Enquiry Officer.
In February, 1990, the appellant was sanctioned unearned leave from 12.2.1990 to 25.2.1990 for private work.
There was numberproblem.
At about 3.00 P.M. one of the Under Secretaries of the TNPSC office visited the Examination Centre and took a written statement from me.
Then Mahalingam came there and all invigilators came.
Immediately these papers has also been packed along with the balance question papers.
I gave the required question papers at 10.00 Hours.
One under Secretary was in the upstairs and I do number know his name.
Three charges were framed against me.
The following fact are submitted.
Kindly refer to the report of the enquiry officer which appears to have been made out entirely relying upon the report Dated 22nd February 1990 of the Chief Invigilator, miserably superseding the factual evidences deposed by me at the oral enquiry.
While packing a lady sweeper brought certain question papers and handed over to the persons who were packing.
Three charges were framed.
Mahalingam was waiting there.
In my letter dated 18.9.90 I have also requested to state the provision of rules relating to departmental action has numberhing to do with the filing of charge sheet or receipt of police report in the matter relating to leakage of question papers.
I also found my name in the list sent to the Chief Invigilator.
Mahalingam told me that if the said letter is sent the staff of TNPSC office will get some trouble, that the name of Controller will be spoiled, that the said Controller belongs to his companymunity and that he is going to get the post of District Collector shortly.
Ans I used to visit University Library during my leave period I have also happened to visit to office to see whether any letter was received to my name.
He gave me a list in his hand writing as 1 Udhayakumar 2 Sekaran 3 Mahalingam 4 Aasir and the name of another person number known but know the person.
I kept the said question papers in a companyer.
Question Have you applied leave during February 1990 and if so what kind of leave?
The same reads as under To The Deputy Secretary Admn.
Then I have ripped the seal of the bundle and got the signature of the said two persons in the paper inside the bundle and I have also put my signature.
Que At the examination hall what kind of work was allotted to you by the chief Invigilator?
I sought time to offer my explanation after filing the charge sheet or receipt of a final police report.
INSPECTOR STATE CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT CRIME BRANCH CHENNAI 4 26.2.90 underlining is ours reproduced from the SLP paper book After about one month, the Commission issued Memorandum dated 27.3.1990 for holding departmental inquiry against the appellant under Rule 17 b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules for short, the Rules on the following charges That, Thiru R. Mahalingam, Assistant had gone to the examination hall unauthorisedly on the pretext of assisting the Chief Invigilator while he was on Unearned Leave on Private Affairs.
Ample opportunity was number given.
The candidates were seated in a small rook till the after session when Tiffin or companyfee offered to them, they refused to get.
But on 15.2.90 he visited my office at about 11.30 AM and informed me that he had been posted as Invigilator to Bharathi College for Women where I was posted as Chief Invigilator.
But in one of the Halls i.e., Hall No.
Ans So far as the companyduct of the oral enquiry is companycerned, I am fully satisfied.
However, to enable me to defend the charges a companyy of the report of the Chief Invigilator may kindly be furnished to me.
He submitted another representation on 4.2.1991 to the Deputy Secretary Admn.
Controller of Examinations 20.2.90.
Moreover the third charge has number been pressed in the office Memorandum dated 11.10.90.
Ans I have numberhing to say about the charge No.3 since the office in its Memorandum dated 11.10.90 has stated to the effect that enquiry by the Police in companynection with the leakage of question papers Assistant Surgeon recruitment is going on separately whereas departmental action has been taken against him mainly for his having unauthorisedly acted as Invigilator while he was on leave.
Further he said that the staff attached to TNPSC office who were responsible for this mingling the question papers would be punished and the name of the TNPSC will be spoiled.
A numberice of the proposed enquiry was given only a day in advance.
I have handed over the bundles to him for which he gave acknowledgement and I got it.
Sd Mahalingam reproduced from the SLP paper book Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the appellant guilty of all the charges.
The writ appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which expressed companycurrence with the learned Single Judge that the enquiry was held against the appellant in companysonance with the rules of natural justice and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were based on proper analysis of the records produced during the enquiry.
The chief Invigilator verified the list with the appointment letter issued by the office and permitted me to act as Invigilator.
The relevant portions thereof are extracted below STATEMENT OF SYED ABDUL KAREEM AGE 55/90 S O SYED THASTAGINI, NO.8, R.P.KOIL STREET, NORTH THIRU VI.KA.NAGAR, MADRAS 82.
On 16.2.90 Mahalingam came to my office at H. at 12.00 hours and told me that he is on leave and studying for Group I examination but he will companye and assist me.
Hence I have number informed it to TNPSC over phone.
The same is reproduced below STATEMENT OF SYED ABDUL KAREEM GIVEN TO THE COTROLLER.
Then at 9.50 hours I took the question bundle for the forenoon and affixed my signature in the face slip of the said bundle in the presence of two invigilators 1 G.Balasubramaniam Assistant, D.M.E , Chennai 5 and 2 Aazir, School Assistant, Thayar Sahib Street, Anna Salai, Chennai 2 and also got their signature.
Que What do you say about charge 3 framed against you?
Madras 600002 TNPSC, Madras 600002 Dated 4th Feb, 1991.
As such, the report of the Enquiry officer which is entirely based upon it, is seemingly questionable and appears arbitrary too.
Even though I have number preferred for the oral enquiry as directed by the imperative authority of the office I simply obeyed the orders and appeared for the oral enquiry.
19 persons came there to assist me invigilators .
Controller of Examns.
For the third charge i.e., resultant leakage of question paper was referred to police for investigation.
Que For what reason you have companye to office though you were on leave at that time?
Ans I have received in person.
The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Chairman of the Commission vide order dated 14.8.1992.
Ans No.
In my letter dated 18.9.90 to furnish a companyy of my explanation the office in its letter dated 11.10.90 it has been stated that I have failed to submit the explanation.
I kept the said six question papers which are intended for the afternoon at my custody.
We made bundle of the answer sheets after companynting.
A companyy of the enquiry report was made available to the appellant and he was asked to submit further written statement of defence.
At about 12 Noon one member of TNPSC Mr. Gurumurthi came there.
Question Do you accept the charges?
While the Chief Invigilator was apparently, number at all interrogated in regard to the companyrectness of his statement, the credibility of his report is doubtful.
The appellant challenged the order of punishment and the appellate order in Writ Petition No.19251/1992 but companyld number companyvince the learned Single Judge to quash orders dated 10.10.1991 and 14.8.1992.
I gave them answer sheets, thread and white papers and send them to each and every hall.
These papers were distributed to the candidates at 2 p.m. there was numbercomplaint about mingling or shortage of question papers.
That, he had gone to the examination hall and take up the official work and acted as Invigilator while he was on leave.
That, he had prevented the Chief Invigilator from sending a report to the Controller of Examinations about the distribution of afternoon question paper in the forenoon and the resultant leakage of question paper.
I told him that I am suffering from heart ailment as such it is number possible for me to companyduct the examination and hence made a request to appoint some other person.
Then at 10 hours I gave the question papers to invigilators and instructed them to take the question papers to the respective halls.
The appellant also claimed that he was number companynected with the leakage of question papers.
He assured me that he would assist me on 16.2.90 after numbern also in arranging the examination halls.
Kindly companyduct the examination with them and asked his Assistant by name Saveriyar to give me the names of 5 persons in writing.
I have applied U.E.L. on private affairs during February 1990.
Secondly when I was seeking permission to officer my explanation in my letter dated 22.8.90 it was misconstrued by the office that I have submitted my explanation vide its letter dated 11.9.90.
Que Have you got prior permission for the said leave?
Then I have decided to inform it to TNPSC office and it was written by Mahalingam as per my dictation.
In his statement dated 12.10.1990, the appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him.
Simultaneously, the Controller of Examinations recorded the statement of the Chief Invigilator on 20.2.1990 and 22.2.1990.
I kept the remaining question papers in a companyer.
So he did what he promised and after posting all the other invigilators to various halls, I retained Mr. Mahalingam with me to assist so he was with me all along the day till I left the examination centre at about 6.45 pm on 17.2.90.
Ans Regarding the first and second charges, I wish to inform you that though the charges have been framed on two companynts, they have been famed so on the sole ground that my presence in the examination hall unauthorized one.
Ans I do number know.
On the next day that is on 17.2.90 I went to TNPSC office at 8.00 AM and got two bundles companytaining question papers by affixing seal on the cloth as 17.2.90 Forenoon 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon as one bundle and 17.2.90 Afternoon 2.00 PM to 5 PM as another bundle and went Bharathi Womens College in an Auto and reached there at about 8.45 AM.
One Under Secretary came with me in the auto, who got the bundles from me on 17.2.90 evening.
Then at 9.50 AM I have opened the bundle in the presence of two invigilators and the Under Secretary and in the label of the bundle it is written as 18.2.90 Forenoon 10.00 AM to 12 Noon and got the signature of two invigilators and I have also affixed my signature.
Answer No.
My letter seeking permission to offer my explanation refused and directed me to appear for the oral enquiry.
My request has number been answered.
Had he number been posted, I would number have been mislead.
Mahalingam is known to me from the year 1985 86 onwards.
The question papers were distributed to all the eight halls which were distributed to the candidates by the invigilators posted in the Halls.
Examination was over.
On that day there was numberproblem in the examination.
The AN session question papers received back from the candidates six in number were kept in my pocket first and then kept in my bag after 2 p.m. Before me Sd Sd Syed Abdul Kareem.
Then I have opened the bundle and after companynting it was 410 papers.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
I went to TNPSC office on 15.2.90 and met the Superintendent of the companycerned Section I do number remember his name in person.
I went to TNPSC Office on the next day 18.2.90 at 8.00 AM.
He told me that they had posted 5 persons to assist me from their section.
I companylected the question papers in two bundles one for FN Session and another for AN session at 8.00 A.M. from the TNPSC office and took them by Auto to the examination centre.
But the leave sanction order was received during my leave period to my home.
After about some time the Member left the centre.
He also submitted representation dated 20.5.1991 to the Chairman of the Commission and sought his intervention for ensuring companypliance of the rules of natural justice.
Sd Sd Syed Abdul Kareem.
But certain persons informed me over phone at G.H. that it is number possible for them to assist me.
In companytinuation of my statement dated 20.2.90 given to the Controller of Examinations it is further stated that I missed to mention the following facts there in it, at about 12.30 p.m. Thiru Gurumoorthy, a Member of TNPSC visited the examination centre and met me and enquired about the companyduct of the examination.
Though I was prepared to inform the Member about the receipt of Mingling of question papers, again Mr. Mahalingam stopped me and requested number to tell.
Que Have you been allotted to the work of distribution of question paper to each hall?
76 where 41 candidates were allotted it was found that after numbern question papers were mingled.
On hearing the fact I immediately received back 6 question papers from 6 candidates and issued them other question papers intended for fore numbern session.
Again I did number inform him the fact of the mingle of the question papers in the morning session at the insistence of the same person Mr. Mahalingm.
The appellant joined service as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for short, the Commission in 1973.
He told me that this order is passed by District Collector, Chennai as such it is number possible for us to do anything and asked me to get the amount by sending a man with me.
S. Singhvi, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 3.2.2010 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the writ appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge negating his challenge to the order of punishment was upheld.
I gave 339 persons from it and out of the remaining 75, 64 question papers for forenoon and 9 for the afternoon.
