R GOKULADOSS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the year 1993, the petitioner was working as Junior Draughting Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Aranthangi Division. He was issued a charge memo dated 14.12.1995 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Five charges were made against the petitioner.

(2.) THE crux of the charges was that the petitioner made despatch entry in the Despatch Register as if a letter was despatched on 26.03.1993, when the letter was actually typed on 12.04.1993.

(3.) DO you desire to be supplied with copies of any records or the depositions of witnesses or the report of the enquiring officer If so, give particulars of the records, copies of which are required. The Copies of statements obtained from other witnesses which are based for framing charges against me may be supplied before passing orders on the explanation However, the statements were not furnished. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 27.12.1998 holding that the charges were established. The first respondent sent a letter dated 5.4.1999 enclosing the enquiry officer's report and sought the comments thereon from the petitioner. The petitioner gave a representation dated 19.5.1999 on the report of the enquiry officer. In his representation, he pointed out various infirmities in the report of the enquiry officer. One of the infirmities is that the petitioner was not furnished with the statements of the witnesses that were made during the preliminary enquiry, while the same were relied on by the enquiry officer to hold the charges as proved. But the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 13.12.1999 without considering the aforesaid point raised by the petitioner. The first respondent issued G.O.2D.No.83, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 13.12.1999 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. A review petition was submitted by the petitioner to the Government on 30.03.2000, but no orders were passed on the same. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4807 of 2001(W.P.No.47381 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid G.O.2D.No.83, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 13.12.1999. 5. Heard Mr.S.Vadivelu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rm.Mutthukumar, learned counsel for the respondents.