P PAUL SAMICKAN DEPUTY TAHSILDAR Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings No.N.K.70770/2004/A3, to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant all attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service in the Revenue Department as Typist in the year 1964. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1987 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of District Tahsildar at Distillery Office, Bannariamman Sugar Limited, Chinnapuliyur, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. When he was serving as an Assistant, in the year 1987, in the office of the District Supply Officer, Erode, the petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings initiated by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Erode under the provisions of Section 161 of IPC and section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was placed under suspension. After the initiation of trial by the Criminal Court the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court by awarding two years rigorous imprisonment. Due to the conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1991 against conviction in C.C.No.294 of 1988. This Court, by order dated 16.07.1996, in C.A.No.4 of 1991, was pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, and, thereby, the petitioner was acquitted. Against the order of acquittal passed by this Court, the State also did not choose to file an appeal before the Apex Court and, thereby, the order of acquittal granted by this Court has become final and binding on the parties.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has challenged only the charge memo which is not legally permissible in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has held that the challenge in respect of charge memo or show cause notice is not legally valid and permissible. On the basis of the above said ratio the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. However, while arguing on merits, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents attempted to bring to the notice of this Court the lapse committed by the petitioner on different occasions. One was relating to the criminal proceedings, for which he was convicted and subsequently the petitioner went an appeal before this Court in C.A.No.4 of 1991 and this Court, by order dated 16.07.1996, has reversed the order of the trial Court and finally the petitioner was reinstated into service and, subsequently, the petitioner has been involved in several proceedings. THErefore, the respondents were not in a position to proceed against the petitioner in respect of lapse committed in the year 1987. However, the respondents thought it fit to proceed against the petitioner and unfortunately just 15 days before the date of retirement from service, the respondents have passed the present impugned order. THErefore, the same cannot be considered as illegal. Hence, the learned Government Advocates prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.