P RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the first Respondent in G.O.(2D) No. 36, dated 22.12.2006, ordering recovery of an amount of Rs. 100/-to be cut from the pension and a sum of Rs. 3,13,940/-out of which Rs. 2,39,069/-to be recovered from the DCRG and balance amount of Rs. 74,871/-from pension at the rate of Rs. 921/-as first instalment and Rs. 1,450/-for 51 months and also forbearing the Respondents from making the recovery.

(2.) Pending writ petition, this Court has passed an order of interim stay on 05.08.2008 which was subsequently made absolute by an order dated 13.07.2009. The Petitioner, who has retired as Special Officer of the Directorate of Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Office, Chepauk, Chennai, was originally appointed as Typist through TNPSC joined duty on 24.11.1966 and after several promotions, he was promoted as the District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Officer and posted at Madurai. It was in 2001, he was promoted as Special Officer and reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004 and he was allowed to retire without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. When he was working as District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Officer, Madurai, he was issued charge memo dated 21.09.2001 containing three charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules which relate to i) the promotion of three assistant cooks on consolidated pay as cooks/watchwomen in the time scale of pay from 01.07.2000 against the instructions of the Commissioner which stipulates that such persons shall not be appointed as Cook/watchman/watchwomen in the time scale of pay, ii) he has transferred 19 employees violating the orders of the Government banning general transfer of Government servants for the year 2000 and iii) by violating the said Government Order, he has violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.

(3.) The Petitioner has submitted an explanation on 19.10.2001 denying the charges to the effect that he has not received any such instructions of the Commissioner, that there was no ban in the Government letter with regard to the request transfer and mutual transfer and that the Petitioner has only followed the Government Order and therefore, he did not violate the Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973. It is stated that the Commissioner for Disciplinary Authority, Salem in the letter dated 10.03.2004 has fixed the date of enquiry to appear on 16.03.2004 and 17.03.2004 and the Petitioner requested for change of the said dates since there was a review meeting called for in Trichy, Peramballur, Karur, Thanajavur, Nagai and Thirvarur from 15.03.2004 to 18.03.2004. Inspite of that, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry exparte and submitted his report on 19.06.2004 based on which a further explanation was called for by the Respondent vide letter, dated 14.09.2004. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 12.10.2004 stating that his inability to attend the enquiry was due to the review meeting conducted in his office itself. Inspite of the same, the first Respondent has issued a show cause notice, directing the Petitioner to explain within 15 days for the purpose of recovery as to why recovery cannot be imposed on the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,13,940 and Rs. 100/-to be cut from the pension of the Petitioner for 12 months. on 28.11.2005, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation and thereafter, the order of punishment has been imposed on him, as against which the present writ petition has been filed on various grounds that the order is violative of principles of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that the exparte order of recovery has been made without giving sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner as per Rule 17(b) and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside; that the enquiry has not been conducted in the manner known to law and there was no oral enquiry that the Petitioner has not been supplied with the materials and that the explanation itself has not been properly considered by the first Respondent. The deduction of Rs. 2,39,069/-from the pension which includes DCRG is against the Pension Rules and 1/3rd of pension amount alone can be deducted.