K DHANASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD M/s.C.S.Monica, learned counsel for Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, by challenging the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent dated 10.11.2005 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 12.01.2007, confirming the order of dismissal and the Government's order dated 19.10.2007 in the further appeal preferred by the petitioner, sought for quashment of the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with back-wages, continuity of service, consequential attendant benefits.

(3.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the explanation given by the petitioner was not taken into account by the Enquiry Officer. THErefore, the enquiry findings based on the certificate submitted by the father of the petitioner cannot be taken into as a valid evidence to prove charges, as his subsequent certificate in original would give a clear evidence. THErefore, the Enquiry Officer's report is perverse and the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel would further contend that the order of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate. When the petitioner is having a required qualification for the post of last grade Government servant, the orders impugned are arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also her contention that the authorities have not taken into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed the orders without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. 5a. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the following decisions: (i)a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India