M.SITHARTHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the 2 nd respondent Board through employment exchange on 23.10.1989 and was promoted as Asst. Executive Engineer on 22.2.11. While serving thus, a charge memo was issued on the petitioner charging the petitioner on five counts of which charges 3 and 5 are the major charges and the other charges are incidental to charges 3 and 5. The main charges relate to non-maintenance of vouchers with regard to 19.57 MT cement. The petitioner denied all the charges and, therefore, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 4.5.2000 holding the charges proved. The petitioner was provided with the enquiry report and his explanation was called for to which he submitted his additional explanation on 6.6.2000. However, not satisfied with the said explanation, the 2 nd respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and for recovery of loss to the tune of Rs.47,114/- to be deducted in instalments from the salary of the petitioner, vide order dated 16.7.04. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent, which was rejected vide order dated 27.1.12 and aggrieved by the said rejection, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner denied all the charges and specifically denied all the charges levelled against him. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has explained for charge No.3 that he has not only entered the details of the 19.575 MT cement in the books of account, but has also sent the account books along with the bills on 5.10.98 to his superiors. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, vide his letter dated 28.10.98 has also sent a letter to the Executive Engineer as to whom the cement has to be handed over and was expecting the reply. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the explanation offered by the petitioner have not been considered in proper perspective by the respondent and the order in pursuance of the said enquiry report is wholly unsustainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report does not disclose the basis of the materials on which the enquiry officer has predicated his findings. Therefore, for all the lacunae above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the present petition. . No.7971/2013

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not placed any letter dated 28.10.98 alleged to have been written to the 2nd respondent and simply saying that he has addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent would not suffice to hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner cannot simply shift the burden on one Kuppusamy, for not properly maintaining the accounts and the petitioner cannot take shelter under the act of one Kuppusamy to absolve himself of his culpability.