LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-25

B LOGANATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 04, 2000
B.LOGANATHAN Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA (REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION), PONDICHERRY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is directed against the charge memorandum of the second respondent dated nil calling for the petitioner to submit written statement of defence within 10 days to quash the same and for consequential direction to the second respondent to consider and promote him as senior assistant with effect from 13 January 1998, with all service and monetary benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as clerk in the municipality and was subsequently absorbed in the Villianur Commune Panchayat service as junior assistant with effect from 11 November 1974.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was working as junior assistant in the second respondent-Panchayat with effect from 11 November 1974. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he figures at Sl. No. 5 in the seniority list of junior assistants published on 12 November 1987, he was not considered for promotion to the next higher post of senior assistant because of the impugned charge-memo. The impugned charge-memo, served in the month of November 1997, contains two irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1982, namely :(1) non-disbursement of cash to muster-roll workers; and (2) non-maintenance of proper cash registers. As regards the first charge, it is the case of the petitioner that on some occasions other persons disbursed cash instead of the petitioner who was acting as cashier and regarding the second charge, cash amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs were not properly shown in the cash register and several instances are given to show that the amounts are shown at different dates. The perusal of the charge-memo and the imputations served along with the charge-memo clearly would show that there is no allegation to the effect that the petitioner had misappropriated public money. On the other hand, it shows that the amount relating to wages have been disbursed to the workers by different persons than the petitioner who was the cashier and entries were made then and there in the cash register.