(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.19591/2007-1/A4, dated 26.10.2007 and the impugned order of the 1st respondent passed in G.O.Pa.No.234, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP4) Department, dated 28.06.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from 31.01.2003 with all monetary and attendant benefits.
(2.) The petitioner submits that he joined the services of the 2 nd respondent as Bill Collector on 18.03.1965 and was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1986 and further promoted as Executive Officer in 1999 and was given selection grade in the cadre of Executive Officer. He has put in blemishless service during his entire career. While so, 40 days before the date of superannuation, the petitioner was issued with the charge memo under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 26.12.2002 which according to him was trivial in nature and the charges are pertaining to the lack of supervision as well as not following the procedure in making payment and issuance of contracts. The petitioner gave his explanation immediately that is on 06.01.2003 itself.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the charges are not pertaining to misappropriation or irregularity in making payment, but for not following the procedure, the charges were framed. The petitioner was further subjected to another charge memo and subsequently by proceedings dated 05.08.2005 it was finally concluded that the charges are dropped. According to the petitioner, even though he gave his explanation well before his retirement, the respondents had not chosen to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time. However, on the date of retirement, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service and he was retained in service. After 4 1/2 years of the retirement, the charge memo was proceeded and the enquiry officer was appointed only on 12.03.2007. The enquiry officer did not examine any of the witnesses in respect of the charges, nor marked any document to substantiate the charges and without following any procedure and without any application of mind, has simply concluded that the charges can be concluded to be proved. The enquiry report was given to the petitioner on 29.07.2007 asking him to give his explanation to the enquiry report. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority without any independent application of mind as to why he accepts the enquiry officer's report, has in one line order stated that he agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charges were proved. None of the contentions raised by the petitioner was considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal is passed. While passing the order, the disciplinary authority has not even taken into consideration the blemishless service by the petitioner in the department for 39 years and therefore aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent by appeal dated 12.12.2007 and the petitioner had given detailed explanation to the charges framed against him and the 1st respondent also dismissed the appeal without any application of mind by a non speaking order.