N. ULAGARAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner joined in the Registration Department as an Office Assistant on 29.09.1986. On account of the allegation of demanding and acceptance of bribe, Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner as well as the Sub-Registrar concerned and a charge memo was issued by the Competent Authority. The Disciplinary Proceedings were referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli, in proceedings dated 11.12.2006 and the following charges are framed.

(2.) The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings conducted trial and submitted its final enquiry report on 27.03.2007. Based on the enquiry report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli, the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent passed the final orders on 18.12.2007 removing the writ petitioner from service. The writ petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent on 25.01.2008 and the major penalty of removal from service was modified by the first respondent and the punishment of compulsory retirement was issued in proceedings, dated 07.02.2011. Challenging the original order of punishment of removal as well as modified punishment order of compulsory retirement, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vociferously contended that absolutely there is no evidence for demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of any evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to impose the punishment of removal as well as the modified punishment of compulsory retirement. The case of the writ petitioner is a fair case for exoneration from the charges. The allegation was mainly against the Sub-Registrar and the writ petitioner was an Office Assistant. Simply because the Office Assistant accompanied the Sub-Registrar, the allegation of bribe cannot be thrusted on the writ petitioner. Thus, the entire charges are baseless and there is no evidence to establish the allegations against the writ petitioner and based on the presumption that the writ petitioner accompanied the Sub-Registrar, the penalty of removal as well as the modified punishment of compulsory retirement was issued.