P. MANISEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while holding the post of Executive Engineer in the respondent department was due to retire on 30.04.2018, on which date, certain charges were levelled against the petitioner. Through the impugned charge memo dated 30.04.2018 and by other Government Orders passed on the same date in G.O.Ms.No.121, 122 and 116, Public Works (E1) Department, all dated 30.04.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was not permitted to retire from the service on attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a letter dated 07.05.2018 issued by the Principal of Government ITI Institute, Nagercoil to the Assistant Engineer, evidencing that a Half HP Mono Block Motor has been fitted in the Marine Engine Fitter Department and therefore, the charges itself cannot be sustained. He would also place reliance on G.O. (Ms).No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007 and submit that the action on the part of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to retire on the last date of his retirement, on the basis of the alleged charges and the consequential suspension order cannot be sustained.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate, by placing reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit would submit that this is a case of serious irregularity of financial misappropriation and based on the report of the investigating Agency, charges came to be levelled against the petitioner. He would also submit that since the scope of interference to the charge memo or suspension order is very limited, it is always open to the petitioner to establish his innocence during the course of disciplinary enquiry and therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition by exercising Article 226 of the Constitution of India.