R PALANISAMY Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER ERODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.9234/2005 is filed for a direction against the second respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Sathiamangalam, Erode District from making any recovery from the petitioner's pay pursuant to the instructions of the District Revenue Officer dated 28.09.2004. W.P.No.15067/2005 is filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent Tahsildar dated 11.4.2005 which is an order passed to recover the amount of Rs.53,937/- from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act by giving a demand notice prior to the attachment of the land of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Special Revenue Inspector (Adi Dravidar Welfare) in Sathiamangalam. It appears that a departmental action was initiated against him in 1990. A charge-memo was issued on 10.7.1990 on the allegation that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.96,206/- being land revenue and land development taxes collected from the ryots. It is also stated that in the meantime a criminal case was lodged against him and it was taken on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in C.C.No.110/90. It is stated that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.3211/1995 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge memo on the ground that on the same set of facts a criminal case was also pending. The said O.A.No.3211/1995 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 24.7.2003 with a direction to the respondent department to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the decision of the Criminal Court. In the meantime, the Criminal Case filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.110/1990 was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai acquitting the petitioner by judgment dated 13.7.1999. As against the final order passed in O.A.No.3211/1995 as stated above by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent in W.P.No.9234/2005 has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9341/2004. As it is stated that the petitioner came to be acquitted in the Criminal Case, the Division Bench while disposing of the W.P.No.9341/2004 by order dated 24.11.2005 has taken note of the fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were set on the same facts and the Criminal Court having acquitted the petitioner, the Revenue administration is not justified in pursuing the departmental enquiry and held as under:

(3.) The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the recovery sought to be made under the Revenue Recovery Act which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15067/2005 cannot be questioned on the ground that the petitioner has caused loss to the department by his conduct and therefore it is independent. These two contentions cannot be sustained.