R.GOVINDARAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that he entered the service of the 2nd espondent as Junior Assistant and after obtaining a series of promotions, at the crucial point of time, was functioning as District Registrar and the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, was due to retire from service on 29.2.08. While serving thus, vide G.O. (D) No.55, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 13.2.08, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of grave allegations/charges and vide G.O. (D) No.84, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 29.2.08, invoking the powers under FR 56 (1) (c), the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service until completion of inquiries into the charges framed against him.

(2.) Thereafter, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short 'TDP'), issued a charge memo dated 9.4.08 with regard to accumulation of assets to the tune of Rs.10,19,361/- disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner during the check period from 1.1.95 to 31.12.01 and consequent violation of Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules. The petitioner, on receipt of the charge memo, submitted his explanation denying the allegations and stating that the properties were acquired by his wife from her independent source of income derived from Cable TV business and not from the income of the petitioner and that his wife is an income tax assessee and all the income earned by her from her independent source have been disclosed in the income tax statements for the relevant years. However, not satisfied with the explanation, proceedings were conducted by the TDP and an enquiry report, dated 30.8.11 was submitted holding that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he was put on notice as to why punishment should not be imposed on him to which the petitioner submitted his further explanation. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the 1st respondent, in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, passed the order, impugned herein, imposing the punishment of 'Dismissal from Service' on the petitioner, which is assailed before this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the TDP is not based on evidence available on record, but it is mere acceptance of the materials placed by the employer against the delinquent. The materials placed by the delinquent/petitioner has not been properly appreciated while rendering a finding as to the delinquency of the petitioner.