B K GUNASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the charge memo issued to the petitioner by the second respondent in his proceedings No. 10455/V1/2010 dated 2.3.2010.

(2.) The brief facts relevant herein are set down as follows: The petitioner joined in the service of the first respondent Registration Department as Sub Registrar during 1975 and he was promoted as District Registrar during 1987 and the petitioner was, on the date of his suspension vide G.O. (2D). No. 36 and on the date of issuance of charge memo dated 12.3.2010 impugned herein, serving in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore Zone. The impugned charge memo contains single charge framed under Section 17(b) to the effect, that the petitioner was in the course of his tenure as District Registrar (A1G cadre, Vellore) between 1998-2002 adopted lesser value than the prescribed guide line value in respect of some of the properties thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,64,832/- to the Government and the same is in contravention amounting to misconduct under Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Government (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules. The validity of such Charge memo is questioned herein on the ground as follows:

(3.) Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, vehemently oppose the claim both in law, and on facts. The first legal objection raised is that the writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable and the remedy available to the charged officer is to go before the disciplinary authority by way of his explanation and he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the show cause notice and the writ petition is premature in nature. The official respondents have also denied the factual objections regarding the question of delay, vagueness and mala fide nature of the charges etc.,