D M GOVINDARAJAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, D.M.Govindarajan, seeking for a prayer to call for the records of the 1st respondent, passed in No.Na.Ka.No.90221/98/X2, dated 06.07.99 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner, while serving as a Noon Meal Organiser at Kudavaadi Union Primary School, the Sub-Collector, Hosur carried out the inspection in the petitioner's Noon Meal Centre on 10.04.90 and having found certain shortage in the stocks, the petitioner was placed under suspension by issuing memo dated 30.06.1990. THE charge memo also referred the total value of the shortage in the stock on 30.06.90 at Rs.47/-. THErefore, he was directed to deposit double the amount to the 3rd respondent herein. THE petitioner also remitted the said amount of Rs.94/- and also sent his explanation simultaneously. THE 2nd respondent, after satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, issued a communication letter No.Na.Ka.3870/90/A4, dated 08.05.91, recommending to the 1st respondent for revocation of the suspension order in order to enable the petitioner to rejoin the duty. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent also sent a reminder to the 1st respondent in his letter No.Na.Ka.1310/92(A4), dated 28.10.92, but there was no response from the 1st respondent to the recommendation letter dated 08.05.91. THEreafter, the petitioner, having waited for a long time, made a number of representations dated 06.02.96, 12.06.96, 10.02.97 and finally on 24.08.97. Since the representations of the petitioner was not answered by the respondents, the petitioner finally, filed O.A.No.7342 of 1998 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to pass suitable orders on his representation dated 24.08.97. THE Tribunal, after entertaining the application, directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.97 regarding his reinstatement and pass orders as per rules within a period of eight weeks. In pursuant to the above said direction issued by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent has passed an order dated 06.07.99, rejecting the request of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service. THE said order is now under challenge.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.