K.M.THAMIZHARASU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner while working as Deputy Block Development Officer, Poondi Panchayat Union was placed under suspension on 25.2.2011 on contemplation of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Service (D & A) rules. The petitioner was served with three sets of charge memos, dated 20.01.2011, 19.5.2011 and 15.6.2011, consisting of 19 charges framed against the petitioner. A common enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer on the three charges framed against the petitioner, the enquiry report was submitted to the second respondent. Writ petitioner also submitted a reply to the enquiry report on 6.6.20122 and 7.6.2012 to the second respondent. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that charges were proved against the petitioner and other delinquents. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent passed the impugned order by removing the petitioner from service. Challenging the dismissal order passed by the second respondent, the writ petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the first respondent on 9.9.2014. He also preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18415 of 2012 challenging the impugned suspension order passed by the District Collector, second respondent herein. When the writ petition was pending, the first respondent passed the impugned suspension order by rejecting the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several grounds in the writ petition by alleging that the writ petitioner made a request to the enquiry officer to furnish copy of the complaint along with documents mentioned in the charge memo, but the said request was not acceded to by the enquiry officer. Similar request was also made before the Tribunal to furnish copy of the documents mentioned in the charge memo. But without furnishing the said documents, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order. Challenging the said order, appeal has been preferred and in the appeal also, the writ petitioner raised the same ground that the enquiry officer has not furnished the documents sought for by the writ petitioner. Further, writ petitioner also specifically raised a ground that there is no monetary loss to the Government and he admitted before the Disciplinary Authority that the mistake happened at the time of making entries in the NMR register and the petitioner has not obtained signatures from the concerned authorities for making payment before passing the bill. Writ petitioner made payment only to 178 persons, therefore, there is no monetary loss caused to the respondent Panchayat. Insofar as the other charges framed against the petitioner, the writ petitioner made explanation by denying the aforesaid charges. These aspects are not properly considered by the Appellate Authority. Further, Appellate Authority has not passed the order in consonance with Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. According to the petitioner, the the first respondent passed impugned order without considering the ground raised by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is non speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that 19 charges were framed against the petitioner and he submitted explanation to the authorities. Based on the explanation and other materials placed on record, the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and the Disciplinary Authority passed the detailed order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority after considering the findings of the enquiry officer and the order passed by the second respondent passed the detailed final order confirming the order passed by the second respondent.