K NARAYANASWAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to call for the records relating to the 1st Respondent herein in G.O. (D) No. 79, dated July 29, 1994 and quash the removal order and the consequential order passed in review in G.O.3(D) No. 149 dated November 19, 1996 and re-instate him into service with all attendant and consequential benefits with due regards to his seniority. On the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application stood transferred and renumbered as W.P. No. 37441/2006.

(2.) The Petitioner was originally appointed in the Agricultural Department. Subsequently, he was deputed to the Horticulture Department on deputation. While he was working in the Horticulture Department, certain allegation of misappropriation was alleged against the Petitioner and consequently he was served with a Departmental Enquiry notice dated February 27, 1986 followed by a charge memo dated June 5, 1990 under Rule 17(b) of the CCA rules was issued by the 3rd Respondent herein. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Therefore, an enquiry officer was appointed, who, after conducting enquiry, held that the charges against the Petitioner are proved. Based on the same, the Government passed an order of removal dated June 29, 1994. The Petitioner has also filed an appeal on September 28, 1994 to the Government and the same was also dismissed on November 19, 1996. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal on two grounds. The first ground was that the Commissioner of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings held that the charge against the Petitioner are proved and consequently, the Government by letter dated November 12, 1992 issued a show cause notice as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed on the Petitioner, even before communicating the report of the enquiry officer and it is against the amendment to Rule 10 of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings rules. Secondly, as per Rule 10, the final order has to be passed only by the Head of the Department. But the impugned order has been passed by the Government. Furthermore, he would specifically plead that even if the charge is proved, the charge relates to alleged misappropriation of fund amount of 10/-, 20/- and thus total maximum amount of 600/-for which without considering the past service of more than 21 years of service put in by the Petitioner, the punishment of removal from service has been imposed which is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges. Therefore also, the punishment is liable to be reduced, taking into considering the long tenure of 21 years of service of unblemished record of service by the Petitioner.

(3.) The Respondents have not filed any counter. The learned Government Advocate specifically pleaded that all fair opportunities were granted to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has participated in the enquiry and the report was duly submitted to the disciplinary authority. Furthermore, the Petitioner was given copy of the report and then his further representation was sought. Ultimately the order was passed by the Government removing the Petitioner from service. There is no impediment in the appointing authority passing the order based on the report after getting further explanation. Even though, the Petitioner's contention that the appeal provision is last, already he filed the review application. Therefore, on that ground, it cannot be said that the entire proceedings are vitiated. Furthermore, the principles of natural justice have been followed in letter and spirit. As far as the punishment is concerned even though there was misappropriation of funds in the range of 10/- totalling to the tune of 660/-, yet the punishment is justified and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.