K.BABY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned charge memo issued in Na.Ka.No.9124/2005/A1 dated 12.12.2013 and to quash the same.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer and she joined the service on 10.04.1984. A criminal case has been registered against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur in Crime No.9 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on the complaint preferred by one Sivanesan alleging that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification for issuing a patta. Following the complaint dated 25.08.2005, a trap was fixed and the petitioner was trapped and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, she was released on bail. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 26.08.2005 for the said criminal act. The suspension order was later on released by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.04.2010 obeying the orders of this Court passed in W.P(MD)No.12065 of 2009, dated 10.12.2009. The petitioner was later on serving at Pinnaiyur West Village, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.

(3.) The petitioner was issued with a charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, wherein two charges were framed against him and the first charge was that the petitioner did not issue receipt for collecting a sum of Rs.650/- from the complainant Sivanesan and the second charge was that after having received the amount, the petitioner did not remit the same to the Government Treasury and caused financial loss to the Government. An enquiry officer was appointed and he conducted an oral enquiry against the petitioner. On 08.09.2007, the Enquiry Officer has accepted the oral explanation given by the petitioner and submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. The petitioner was given a copy of the said enquiry officer's report on 09.06.2008 and the petitioner submitted his further representation to the said report on 13.06.2008. The disciplinary authority by order dated 17.06.2008 held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect.