U MOHAMMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the first petitioner was serving as Deputy Director of Health Services, Krishnagiri, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 28.09.1994 on the ground that enquiry into a grave allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification was contemplated against him. Subsequently, challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 5805 of 1994 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 15.12.1995 set aside the order of suspension and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 28.06.1996 and he was given posting order on 11.07.1996 as Deputy Director of Health Services, Devakottai. Subsequently, a charge memo dated 05.01.1996 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipoine and Appeal) Rules wherein two charges were levelled against him and they are as follows:-

(2.) THAT during May and June 1994, he had demanded and acepted illegal gratification from the Village Health Nurse under his jurisdiction, that is, from Selvi. Manimegalai (Rs.1,500/-) Selvi. Bakyam (Rs.1,000/-) and demanded Rs.2,000/- from Selvi. Nazima Banu for retaining them in their places of preference."

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate, relying upon the reply affidavit of the respondent, has stated that the first petitioner was given sufficient opportunities in the departmental enquiry conducted against him. THE fact that the first petitioner has given invitation for his daughter's marriage to his subordinate only with a view to get presentations from all his subordinates is a very serious offence. THE first petitioner, knowing fully well the Government Regulations in this regard, ought not to have given the marriage invitation to his subordinates. THErefore, the respondent, taking into consideration the nature of charge against the first petitioner has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and it is befitting to the nature of charges levelled against him. Even though the respondent has intended to initiate criminal proceedings against the first petitioner, it was not contemplated as the respondent has only recommended for conducting a departmental enquiry against the first petitioner and accordingly, the departmental enquiry was conducted which resulted in passing of the impugned order.