W.P. Nos. 8968 and 8969 of 2014. Case: K. Muthusamy Vs The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. Nos. 8968 and 8969 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Vijayakumar, Adv. and For Respondents: P. Sanjai Gandhi, Additional Government Pleader |
| Judges | K. K. Sasidharan, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | March 25, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
K. K. Sasidharan, J.
-
These Writ Petitions at the instance of a retired employee of Revenue Department and stated to be a cancer patient undergoing treatment at Christian Medical College, Vellore, challenges the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide charge memo dated 31 July 2013 and 28 November 2006, on various grounds, including delay and initiation of second enquiry without cancelling the earlier report submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating him from charges.
Brief facts:--
-
The petitioner was initially appointed as Office Assistant. He was promoted to the post of Record Clerk and later as Junior Assistant in the Panchayat Union Office, Andhiyur. The petitioner thereafter joined the Revenue Department pursuant to his option. He was promoted to the post of Assistant on 17 October 1987. The petitioner was posted in the office of Special Tahsildar, Erode.
W.P. No. 8968 of 2014:--
-
The petitioner along with other employees went on general strike from 2 July 2003 to 24 July 2003. The Government of Tamil Nadu dismissed the employees, including petitioner. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to restore the services of dismissed employees.
-
While so, the fourth respondent issued a charge memo dated 31 July 2003 to the petitioner, alleging misconduct under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The following are the charges:--
Charge No. 1: That the petitioner took part in the strike from 2.7.2003 to 24.7.2003 but however, on 24.7.2003, he was in the office of Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Erode District, contrary to the rules, thereby disobeying the Government rules.
Charge No. 2 Though the petitioner was dismissed from service, a sum of Rs. 7000/- was found under the Almirah of the office of the Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, for which no prima facie explanation were shown, thereby the petitioner involved in activities and the Government lost his confidence.
-
The Enquiry Officer appointed by the fourth respondent examined witnesses, including Assistant Director, Geology and Mining and submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16 October 2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. Since nothing was heard, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 1989 of 2004 before the State Administrative Tribunal for a direction to finalize the enquiry proceedings. The State Administrative Tribunal by order dated 30 April 2004, directed the fourth respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six weeks. The fourth respondent failed to comply with the said order.
-
While so, the Special Tahsildar, Rehabilitation, vide proceedings dated 5 March 2008, called upon the petitioner to appear for another enquiry pursuant to the proceedings dated 4 January 2008 on the file of fourth respondent. Since it was a second enquiry, the petitioner in his explanation, opposed the said move. Since the Enquiry Officer proceeded further, the petitioner took part in the enquiry. The second Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 15 April 2008, holding that the charge regarding possession of a sum of Rs. 7000/- found in the almirah has been proved on the basis of preponderance of evidence. The second respondent, based on the enquiry report, issued second show cause notice on 22 February 2014, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why punishment of withholding a sum of Rs. 500/- from his pension amount for a period of six months should not be imposed. The charge memo dated 31 July 2003 and the proceedings dated 22 February 2014 are challenged in W.P. No. 8968 of 2014.
W.P. No. 8969/2014:--
-
The fourth respondent on receipt of a report from the Enquiry Officer holding that charges were not proved, issued another charge memo dated 28 November 2006, alleging serious misconduct under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The following are the charges:--
"Charge No. 1: That the petitioner was responsible to act contrary to the office rules by engaging the services of one Malliga, typist for doing the job on payment of Rs. 1000/- without the permission of Assistant Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Erode District.
Charge No. 2 That the petitioner has failed to discharge...
To continue reading
Request your trial