M SRIDHAR Vs. E TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT had been submitted that the petitioner had joined in service, on 23.12.1986, as a Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. Thereafter, on 27.8.1993, he had been designated, as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I. While so, he was served with a charge memo, on 5.1.2004. Two charges had been levelled against the petitioner relating to the alleged irregularity committed in the registration of the two vehicles. The petitioner had submitted an explanation, dated 12.2.2004, denying the charges and making it clear that there is no obligation on him, under law, to find out whether the vehicles were bona fide in nature and to ensure the correctness of the details relating to the vehicles contained in Form No.20. He had certified with regard to the suitability of the vehicle for the purpose of registration, based on the information provided by the Regional Transport Office, Thiruvallur. Therefore, the petitioner was not liable for the irregularity that had happened in the registration of the vehicles in question.

(2.) IT had been further stated that since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory in nature, an enquiry had been ordered against the petitioner, based on the allegations levelled against him. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Chennai, had been appointed as the enquiry officer. After the enquiry had been conducted, he had submitted his report finding that both the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. Even though the first respondent had decided to accept the findings of the enquiry officer, he had awarded the punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner, by his order, dated 1.3.2005, without any rhyme or reason.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had awarded the punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner, only on the basis of the records available before him, including the report of the enquiry officer, dated 3.2.2005. Therefore, the punishment of 'censure' imposed on the petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law.