S KHADAR BATCHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was employed as a Sanitary officer in the Sathyamangalam Municipality, has filed the present writ petition, challenging the charge memo dated 16.08.2008. In the charge memo issued by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, viz., the second respondent herein, the charges were framed under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of Tamil Nadu Pension (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In Annxure-I to the charge memo, five charges were made against the petitioner including that he demanded and accepted bribe in May 2004 from various milk vendors and also threatened them of foisting cases. THE petitioner pursuant to the charge memo, gave an explanation on 09.09.2008. In the explanation, he had denied the charges and gave his own explanation on the allegations made by the complainant. In the questionnaire form attached to the charge memo, he had stated that he needed oral enquiry in his presence and he wanted the witnesses to be examined and also wanted to have the assistance of a lawyer. With reference to the list of witnesses, he stated that he will disclose the same at the time of enquiry and after submitting the explanation of demanding the enquiry into the charge memo, the petitioner on receipt of the letter appointing an enquiry officer by the second respondent, filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE writ petition came up for admission on 06.02.2009. THE matter was adjourned and consequently learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to take notice vide order dated 17.03.2009. THEreafter, three months after the filing of the writ petition, the matter was brought up for further orders and this Court without admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay till the reopening of the Court viz., 15.06.2009. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 07.08.2009. THE interim stay granted was made absolute on 09.07.2010 with a direction to the respondents to file a counter. Accordingly, a counter affidavit dated 24.08.2010 was filed, to which, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and also additional typed set of papers.

(3.) IT is stated in the counter affidavit that since the allegation made against the petitioner was under investigation and he has also filed the above writ petition and obtained interim stay he was allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2005, that too, without prejudice to the enquiry proceedings pending against him. IT is stated that after conducting of the enquiry, the enquiry report will be sent to the State Government and it is the State Government which is the competent authority to pass orders, as the petitioner had already retired from service in terms of the Pension Rules. Even necessary pension will be sent in terms of the Pension Rules.