JOB MARTIN LUTHER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in G.O.(ID) No.122, School Education (U2) Department Dated 07.06.2005 and the letter bearing No.5279/U2/2004-19 dated 7.6.2005 and quash the orders.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that, when the petitioners were issued with charge memo by the third respondent calling upon the petitioners, to submit their explanations to the charges levelled against them regarding the malpractices took place in the examination, they submitted their explanations. Since, the explanations furnished by the petitioners were not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and thereafter, the enquiry was conducted on 1.4.2004 against all the petitioners. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.04.2004 to the third respondent. After receipt of the enquiry report, the third respondent also passed an order dated 17.4.2004, revoking the suspension order and finally all the petitioners were reinstated in service. Accordingly, the petitioners also joined duty with in a couple of days. Though, there were 12 persons implicated by the Flying Squad which conducted an inspection at Thiruvallur on 3.2.2004, however, after completion of the enquiry, when the enquiry Officer submitted his reports, the third respondent also passed an order by revoking the suspension orders and all the petitioners were reinstated in service after a period of 2 1/2 of months. When, the third respondent obliged to pass the final orders on the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling upon further explanations to the findings of the enquiry report, all of a sudden, the Government has issued G.O.(ID) No.122, School Education (U2) dated 7.6.2005, directing the initiation of another proceedings against all 12 persons including the petitioners in a common proceeding by appointing the Secretary to Government, School Education Department to function as the disciplinary authority, with powers to impose any of the penalties stipulated under the rules. Along with the State Government Order, the first respondent has also issued a charge memo bearing letter No.5279/U2/2004-19 dated 7.6.2005 alleging the same said of charges for which, the third respondent had already initiated disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry. Aggrieved by the initiation of the second disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) ON the basis of the above said submissions, supported by the judgment of this Court, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the initiation of second disciplinary proceedings on the ground that against the same said of charges, since the petitioners have already subjected to enquiry that was already conducted at the instance of the Disciplinary Authorities, there is no provision in the rules for a second inquiry in respect of the same set of facts and charges.