M DHANARAJ Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M.Dhanaraj, has filed the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent on 22.10.99.

(2.) The petitioner, while serving as Village Administrative Officer, Ketty-III Village of Coonoor Taluk, alleged to have misappropriated Government money collected during the month of April, 1998. The petitioner collected the land revenue tax amount of Rs.980/- on 21.04.98 and even after obtaining the signature of the Revenue Inspector, Ketty and Deputy Tahsildar of Taluk Office, Coonoor on 30.04.98 for remitting the said money into the Government account, he did not remit the said amount. Even in the year 1991, the petitioner had committed the same offence of misappropriation, for which, he was placed under suspension as per the proceedings Rc.A1.No.7168/90, dated 27.09.91 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. Subsequently, in the said case also charges were framed against him vide Revenue Divisional Officer's Proceedings A1.No.7168/90, dated 24.10.91 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. After proper enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 09.06.92. On appeal made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order for reinstatement on 28.11.97 after considering the family circumstances on compassionate ground. Therefore, by taking into account the antecedent of the petitioner, a charge memo was issued in Rc.A1.No.5685/98, dated 24.09.98 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, by asking him to give his explanation. After submitting his explanation, not being satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority, by rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings Rc.A1.5685/98, dated 03.12.98 and consequent to the above said proceedings, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 12.01.99 holding that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry officer's report was served on the petitioner and he was also served with a second show cause notice to submit his explanation. The petitioner also submitted his second explanation and the disciplinary authority, being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, by considering the findings of the enquiry officer and also by taking into account his earlier misappropriation and subsequent reinstatement, thought it fit to pass an order of dismissal from service under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the illness occasioned to the petitioner, he was not able to immediately remit the amount of Rs.980/-. However, after getting the signature from the Revenue Inspector as well as Deputy Tahsildar, the amount of Rs.980/- was remitted on 14.07.98. Further, for the reason that there was a delay for remittance of the amount, proceedings were initiated again him. Subsequently, though the petitioner was able to submit his explanation saying that he was unable to remit the above said amount in view of his long illness, the enquiry officer disagreed with the explanation offered by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, accepting the report submitted by the enquiry officer, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from the service of the respondent. In his further submission, it was argued that the impugned order of dismissal from service is not commensurate with the proved charges. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dismissed from the service and on that basis, prayed for setting aside the above order of dismissal from service.