S P SUTHANTHIRANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER SIVAGANGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner is one and the same in both the writ petitions. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Poosalakudi village, Devakottai Taluk, and his superannuation was on 31.12.2005 and he was placed under suspension on 29.12.2005, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, in Roc No.A2/l 1996/2005, dated 29.12.2005 and charges were framed against him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him and the Special Tahsildar (Distress Relief Scheme), Devakottai, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and though, notices were sent by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner appeared on that date, no enquiry was conducted and as the petitioner was not allowed to retire and enquiry was also not conducted and hence, he filed W.P. No. 11105 of 2006, on the file of this Court, seeking direction to complete the enquiry within a specific date and this Court has passed an order, dated 12.12.2006 directed the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass final orders on or before 30.5.2007. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and sent his report wherein he has stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The 2nd respondent instead of dropping the charges, forwarded the letter to the first respondent seeking instructions and also passed the order, dated 30.5.2007 stating that as per the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 25.5.2007, the petitioner is exempted from all the charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, initiated pursuant to the proceedings, dated 30.12.2005. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, he is deemed under temporary suspension as per the Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c). The petitioner originally challenged the said order, dated 30.5.2007 and later, amended the prayer to quash a portion of the order relating to keep the petitioner under continued suspension under Fundamental Rule 56( 1 )(c) and direct the respondents to disburse all the pensionary benefits within a specified period.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed a counter in W.P. (MD)No. 8998 of 2007 admitting that all the charges framed against the petitioner were exempted and the 2nd respondent is a Competent Authority to take action and 12 officials, including two from other Departments were involved for the irregular assessment of house sites. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioner should be kept in service till the enquiry is completed in the Department. It is further stated that as the enquiry is pending, the petitioner cannot be allowed to retire from his service in view of Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules as the charges are pending against the petitioner. It is further stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were exempted and the report of the Enquiry Officer is also null and void. It is also stated that 12 officials are involved in the matter of irregular allotment of house sites in Devakottai and the Secretary of the Revenue Department, is the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the accused Officers and the disciplinary proceedings against the accused Officers has not been concluded and hence, it is necessary to place the petitioner under suspension till the disposal of the case. The charges levelled against the petitioner was exempted as the charges were not framed by the Competent Authority and the charges framed against the petitioner are not dropped and a proposal has been sent to the Secretary Revenue Department, in Roc No. A3/5239/05, dated 30.10.2006 for framing charges against the officials involved in that case and the Secretary to Government, who is the Competent Authority will issue the charge memo to the official concerned and as grave charges are pending against the petitioner, he was placed under continued suspension as per Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c). Thereafter, the District Collector, Sivagangai, framed fresh charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1953, on the same set of facts, after deleting certain allegations and a revised charges memo was issued, dated 21.2.2009 in respect of delinquency that took place in the year 1995. As the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, has passed an order on 30.5.2007 exempting the petitioner from the charges levelled against him in respect of the charge memo, dated 21.2.2009, the second charge memo on the same set of facts cannot be maintainable and after 14 years, fresh charge memo cannot be framed against the petitioner and on those grounds, the petitioner challenged the charge memo framed under 17(b)of the said Rule, dated 21.12.2009 by filing writ petition W.P. No. 2093 of 2009.