STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. DR. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the Government of Tamil Nadu. It dismissed one Dr. Balasubramanian, a Veterinary Surgeon working in the Animal Husbandry Department after making disciplinary proceedings against him. He filed the suit challenging that order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. But however in the appeal the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgement of the trial court and decreed the suit and ordered reinstatement and also damages claimed.

(2.) The facts in brief are:- While the plaintiff was working as poultry Development Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandary at Tiruchirapalli there was a Scheme sanctioned under G.O.Ms. No. 2839, dated 17.11.1984 for grant of loans to poultry farmers and that Government Order was followed the G.O.Ms. No. 886 dated 8.3.1965 wherein terms and conditions for disbursement of loans were prescribed. In respect of implementation of the scheme four charges were framed against the plaintiff accusing him of receiving bribes and for violating the conditions in G.O.Ms. No. 886. Out of four charges he was found guilty in respect of two charges by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal recommended stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect. But, however, the Government thought that the proposed punishment is not sufficient and he deserved dismissal from service and accordingly by an order dated 1.8.1976 he was dismissed from service. The first charge was that he received a bribe of Rs. 200 from one Muthusamy for grant of loan and violated the conditions of G.O.Ms. No. 886 and the second charge was that he received a bribe of Rs. 200 from one Veerabadran and violated the conditions of G.O.Ms. No. 886. The plaintiff, it appears, first filed a writ petition and in that writ petition it was held that the proper remedy for the plaintiff is to file a suit.

(3.) In the plaint the plaintiff submitted that he did not receive and bribe as the was charged with and he did not commit any infraction of conditions in the Government order as he is a accused of. He further contended that the charges are vague inasmuch as no particulars as to which of the terms and conditions he has violated has been mentioned. He sanctioned loans only after taking all necessary precautions and there is absolutely no truth in the allegation against him that he received bribes from Muthusamy and Veerabadran. He further submitted that he was proceeded against with the Departmental proceedings six long years after the alleged commission of offences and irregularities. He further submitted that the evidence let in before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings against him was false and the conclusion of the Tribunal is not based on any acceptable legal evidence. He further pleaded that when the Government differed from the Tribunal as regards the punishment it should have referred the matter back to the Tribunal under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules, 1985, and that having been not done, the order of the Government is vitiated. On these grounds plaintiff prayed for declaration, that the Government order dated 1.8.1976 is null and void and he has also prayed for damages from the date of his dismissal and calculating the damage on the basis of his pay he has claimed for Rs. 13,520.