E RANGANATHAN Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER/COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT NUNGAMBAKKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Executive Officer in Arulmighu Chokkanathasami Koil, Ammapettai, was issued with a charge memo dated 27.02.1998. On receipt of the charge memo, a reply dated 07.03.1998 was sent by the petitioner. For the same set of charges, another charge memo dated 07.04.1998 was issued for which also the petitioner submitted his reply on 27.04.1998. While so, at the fag end of the petitioner's retirement date namely 30.04.2000, an order dated 10.12.1999 was issued by the respondent removing him from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the above Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 45350 of 2006.

(2.) THE petitioner would contend that the enquiry officer has given findings in excess of the charges and the impugned order has been passed by the respondent in violation of principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the impugned order would amount to double jeopardy inasmuch the impugned order has been passed not only on the basis of the charge memo dated 27.02.1998 and 07.04.1998 but for the allegations for which already punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. By virtue of the impugned order removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner was compelled to forgo his terminal benefits for the 28 years of service rendered by him, hence, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) IN the order of punishment, after considering the various findings, the disciplinary authority concluded that the charges 1 to 9 made in charge memo dated 27.02.1998 and the three charges made in additional charge memo dated 07.04.1998 were held proved. The punishing authority taken into consideration the evidence on record and the findings of the enquiry officer and has given a detailed finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature especially in misappropriating the funds and keeping it in his hands in excess issuing false vouchers and tampering the records and registers. It was also found that an Executive Officer, who is supposed to maintain and safeguard the funds of the temple has misused his powers by discarding the directions and circulars given by the Department and taken action independently without adhering to the Rules and Regulations. The disciplinary authority has also stated that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the temple and used it for his personal use. After finding the same, the punishing authority also brought out that on more than one occasion, the petitioner was suspended or imposed with punishment for misappropriation of funds or for derliction of duty. Therefore, for embezzlement of funds, negligence and carelessness in duty, forging of accounts and documents, disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors, the petitioner was found to be guilty and he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service. IN fact, the petitioner was 57 years even at the time when he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. Even if he continued in service, he would have now retired. Taking into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner, which are serious in nature and the fact that the enquiry was conducted by the respondent in accordance with the procedure laid down, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves punishment. But at the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the long number of 28 years of service rendered by the petitioner in the department, the punishment may be modified into one of compulsory retirement so as to enable the petitioner to get some benefits.