M PEER MOHAMMED, ASSISTANT Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo dated 12.02.2001, issued by the first Respondent - Secretary to Government, Highways Department, formulating charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, [for short "the Rules"] on various grounds including that the first Respondent has No. jurisdiction to issue such charge memo, since the Petitioner is working in the Rural Welfare Department as an Assistant; that there has been a delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings and that in respect of similarly situated persons, relating to the similar charges, they were exonerated as per the orders of this Court.

(2.) The said ground has been opposed by the second Respondent in the counter affidavit stating that the Petitioner is working as per the new Service Rules framed in G.O.Ms. No. 585, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 12.04.1984 and that the delay is sought to be explained as administrative in nature. It is seen that the impugned charge memo was issued against the Petitioner on 12.02.2001 by the first Respondent with the following charges:

(3.) The charge memo issued by the Secretary to Government, Highways Department relates to the Petitioner, who was working as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II, Dindigul Panchayat Union and there is No. explanation offered as to how the first Respondent belonging to the Highways Department has got jurisdiction to issue charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Rules to the Petitioner. Even otherwise, it is seen that the charge memo, which was issued on 12.02.2001 to the Petitioner, relates to an event, which is stated to have taken place in the year 1996 - 1997, by which a loss to the tune of Rs. 12,627.12 is stated to have been caused to the Government. The Enquiry Officer appointed is stated to have submitted his report on 05.12.2002 and ultimately, a final show cause notice dated 14.10.2003 was issued to the Petitioner, for which he has offered his explanation on 08.12.2003. But, till date, No. final order has been passed.