S KARIKALAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is working as Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, is challenging the Government Order issued in G. O. Ms(2T)No. 133, Co-Operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 27. 11. 2008, imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect, which will not affect the pension.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that from 1990 the petitioner is serving in the Co-operative department without any blemish and he worked as Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Region from 12. 9. 2003 to 2. 2. 2006. After transfer, on 9. 12. 2006 he was issued with a charge memo containing five charges which were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. THE petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges. THE said explanation having been found not satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding that after conducting detailed enquiry all the charges were proved. After the receipt of the the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was asked to submit his remarks and he submitted the same on 28. 4. 2007 and thereafter the impugned order of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effect was passed. THE said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the charges framed were vague; enquiry was conducted in a biased manner; the impugned order is a non-speaking order; the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Punishing Authority; and the explanation submitted for the remarks for the Enquiry Officer's report was not considered.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner who is a responsible officer has not taken note of sending the report to the District Collector for several petitions, nine of which were forwarded by the Chief Minister's Special Cell and 38 were forwarded by the District Collector during the grievance days and the said deficiency/dereliction in work, justified the imposition of punishment, even assuming other charges are not serious enough. THE learned counsel also submitted that the punishment imposed is also lenient which is proportionate to the charges proved and therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the said order of punishment by this Court.