S MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner as well as the respondents in the above writ petitions are one and the same. THE relief sought for in all the writ petitions are inter-linked and therefore, by consent of counsel for both sides, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) OUT of the three writ petitions, WP No. 2958 of 2006 (O.A. No. 4050 of 1999) is a comprehensive one which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.06.1998 passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate, relying on the counter, stated that even though the enquiry officer found that the charge is not proved, the disciplinary authority has every right to take a different view. THErefore, considering the nature of the charges levelled against the petitoner and the loss caused to the exchequer, the disciplinary authority has decided to take a different view than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. THErefore, indicating the disagreement of the disciplinary authority, a notice was also sent to the petitioner seeking his further explanation. THEreafter, after complying with all the formalities, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. According to the learned Government Advocate, the delay of two years in expressing the disagreement by the disciplinary authority is only due to administrative exigency, which is normal and routine in the course of official business. Moreover, the delay by itself will not vitiate the proceedings when the enquiry was conducted in a fair and objective manner.