P. MURUGESAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 30.4.2012 and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents to disburse all emoluments and retirement benefits to the Petitioner.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he has joined service as Typist on 19.09.1996 and subsequently promoted and served as Assistant Accounts Officer(NMP),Section at Collectorate, Namakkal, Namakkal District till 22.4.1999 and completed 32 years of service in the said Department. Further the Petitioner has submitted that he was charged on accusation of conducting Chit by receiving amounts from his colleagues and also from General Public and a Criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.5 of 1999 on the file of City Crime Branch Police, Trichy. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of Economic Offences Wing-II, Trichy in C.C.No.92 of 2004 before the TNPID Court,. Chennai and now in C.C.No.19 of 2008, on the file of TNPID Court, Madurai. While he was in service, he was placed under suspension as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai vide Proceedings No.A3/7237/99, dated 11.6.1999 with retrospective effect from 22.4.1999 based on the complaint made by one Mrs.Prema Subramanian and had initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheques in C.C.No.301 of 1999, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Trichy which was subsequently transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy in C.C.No.349 of 2006. He was convicted and imposed with imprisonment for two years rigorous imprisonment which was suspended on preferring an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge cum PCR Court, Trichy in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2007 and during the trial, the learned Judge has upheld the conviction and the Petitioner had undergone imprisonment from 19.3.2008 to

(3.) 4.2008 for a period of 16 days. Thereafter the Petitioner had preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.370 of 2008, in which the Petitioner was enlarged on bail. The said criminal revision is still pending for disposal before this Court. Appropriate disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal)Rules and pursuant to which a charge memo in Na.Ka.No. 7237/1999/Q3, dated 10.2.2003 was issued, for which, the Petitioner has also submitted a detailed explanation on 12.3.2003. The enquiry was conducted by one Mr.Poomalai, Treasury Officer, Trichy. During enquiry, the Petitioner has pleaded innocence and the Petitioner has been entangled by the conspired act of his colleague namely A.Venkataraman, who has been arrayed as accused No.2 and he is still absconding and not traceable. During the enquiry proceedings, the Petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the oral witnesses examined on the side of the respondents. Further the witnesses produced by the respondents are only interested witnesses and gone to the extent of refusing to depose during the Petitioner's cross examination. On 2.5.2005, the Petitioner has requested the first respondent to suspend the enquiry proceedings till the final adjudication in the criminal cases. The first respondent has rejected the same by his letter, dated 24.6.2005 and the enquiry proceedings is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2006 and the petitioner has not been permitted to retire from service. The first respondent has initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner on the alleged charge of suppression of pendency of criminal cases. During the suspension period, the Petitioner has been issued with a charge memo on 15.7.2010 seeking explanation on the proposal of the Government to impose penalty of dismissal from service, for which, the Petitioner has also submitted an explanation to drop the said proposal vide letter dated 18.09.2010. While so, without considering his representations, the second respondent passed the order of dismissal from service by issuing G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 30.4.2012, which was served on the Petitioner on 4.7.2012. The Respondents have not considered the pendency of the revision and other criminal proceedings and mechanically passed the order of dismissal from service and hence the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the same. It is also now brought to the knowledge of this Court that the Criminal Revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 9.6.2014.