T THANGARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in G.O.(D) No. 842, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 21.7.2008 imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay the petitioner all the monetary benefits withheld consequence of the above punishment with all other service benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Superintendent in Regional Transport Office. On 8.4.2005, a surprise inspection was done by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. At the time of inspection, the officers recovered a bag containing cash of Rs.6200/- and the office seal bearing the designation as Assistant Registering Authority. Mahazer was also drawn. A charge memo dated 4.4.2006 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the petitioner, the superintendent in that office at that point of time.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the witnesses had deposed against the petitioner and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the recovery of money, the bag and the seal. THE confession of the outsider fortifies the findings of the enquiry officer. When the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Officers have stated that the petitioner has no role to play, the department cannot state that as a supervising officer, the petitioner should take more care and caution in the management of the office. If the seizure has any connection with the petitioner, then the question of suspicion would arise. In this case, the said Gowri, Junior Assistant was working in a separate room in the office of the Regional Transport Authority and that has no connection with the petitioner and there is no material to so connect the two. THE order of the Government primarily is on the footing that the petitioner as a supervising officer should ensure all the officers work without any deviant behaviour. Challenging the findings as perverse and prejudiced, the petitioner's counsel pleaded for setting aside the impugned proceedings.