L ASHOK KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 3.10.2008, by the said proceedings, the first respondent directed the second respondent to continue the enquiry and record evidence of certain witness whose names were furnished in the said proceedings. A further direction was issued to the second respondent to submit his further enquiry report along with specific remarks relating to the charges framed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman on 05.06.1998, in the Komarapalayam Municipality. THE petitioner's case is that he married one Sumathi @ Bharathi on 09.02.1997, and it was an intercaste marriage and the petitioner's wife belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. THE petitioner submitted the marriage certificate, which was signed in the presence of relatives, before the employment exchange and his name was registered under a priority category. THE petitioner's name was forwarded by the employment exchange under the priority category of intercaste marriage and he was selected and appointed as Draftsman. During December 1998, the petitioner's wife is stated to have deserted him and her whereabouts were not known. During 1999, it was alleged that the petitioner registered his name in the employment exchange as a priority candidate by producing bogus marriage certificate. In this regard, a criminal complaint was also lodged against the petitioner, which was registered as crime No.22 of 2000, before the Komarapalayam Police Station. THEreafter the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.2968 of 2001, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal granted interim stay of the order of suspension. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge memo dated 11.10.2001 was issued. THE second respondent was appointed as enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted a report on 29.03.2006, holding that the charge is not proved. This enquiry report dated 29.03.2006, was forwarded to the Government and no orders were passed. After about more than 2 = years, a proceeding dated 3.10.2008, was issued by the first respondent, directing the second respondent to continue the enquiry and record evidence of four officers whose names were mentioned. This proceedings dated 3.10.2008, is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent by relying upon the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Draftsman under priority category by producing a false certificate and on verification it was found that no such marriage took place between the petitioner and Sumathi on 09.02.1977 and no such certificate was issued from the Taluk Office, Sangari and the rubber stamp affixed in the certificate is bogus. Based on investigation, charges were framed under Rule 8(2) of Tamilnadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules 1970, dated 11.10.2001, and an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted on 29.03.2006. It is further stated that on examination of the enquiry report, it was found that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry properly and proper procedure was not followed and therefore, the matter was remitted to the enquiry officer for recording further evidence. THErefore, it is contended that the petitioner's contention that the respondents are bound to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly untenable. THE learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner cannot seek for direction that the disciplinary authority has to accept the report of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority may deviate from the findings of the enquiry officer and the charge against the petitioner is very serious as he has committed forgery, which was found out belatedly based on investigation. THErefore, it is contended that the enquiry officer having failed to examine the key witnesses, there is no error in the first respondent directing the enquiry officer to reopen the enquiry proceedings.