A P JAYALAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the impugned Charge Memo dated 03.02.2004 and the consequential order of punishment passed against the petitioner by the first respondent-Government in G.O.(D)No.538, RD & LA Dept. dated 24.09.2007. The petitioner was originally appointed as Khadi Assistant Grade-III by the Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai on 18.08.1993 and he was posted in the Office of the Assistant Director at Dindigul and subsequently he was transferred and completed his successful probation on 20.10.1995.

(2.) The petitioner has submitted his letter of resignation on 03.10.1997 which was accepted by the third respondent on 10.09.1999 relieving the petitioner from the post with effect from 03.10.1997. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, there was no disciplinary proceedings and in fact a Certificate was issued about the non-pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him. Thereafter, he got appointed as PG Assistant in the Government Kallar Higher Secondary School, Chekkanoorani, Madurai on 17.10.1997 in which post he is now continuing.

(3.) The first respondent has issued the impugned Charge Memo dated 03.02.2004 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The Charge Memo was on two counts. The first one is, while working as Khadi Assistant during the year 1994-95 and 1995-96, the petitioner colluded with Block Development Officer, Extension Officer and Panchayat Assistants for misappropriation of Panchayat funds, while procuring the uniforms for the Panchayat staff, and prepared bogus bills. The second one is that the petitioner has assisted, by collusion, in causing loss of the Panchayat funds, which is against the Code of Conduct Rule 20(1). The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 05.04.2004 and enquiry was conducted on 30.11.2004 and the petitioner has also submitted her further explanation on 02.09.2005 and thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned order which is the final order in the disciplinary proceedings imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The impugned Charge Memo as well as the final order passed by the first respondent are challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, namely:-