LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-410

P NATARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER H R

Decided On August 30, 2011
P.NATARAJAN Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, H.R AND C.E. DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order of the Commissioner HR & CE Department, Chennai viz., the first respondent in R.P.No.75 of 2006 dated 03.04.2009.

(2.) BY the impugned order, the first respondent, being the Revisional Authority, under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the Chairman, Trust Board of Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, being the second respondent herein.

(3.) AN additional charge memo dated 22.08.2003 was given to the petitioner. AN enquiry was conducted by the Thakkar of the Temple through enquiry notice dated 21.01.2004. The petitioner sent a representation dated 05.03.2004 claiming subsistence allowance. He was replied with a letter dated 23.03.2004 that he should furnish a non-employment certificate for getting subsistence allowance and he had also been asked to give explanation as to how he left the station without intimation to the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner by his communication dated 09.09.2004 informed the second respondent that in the first enquiry, he could not attend due to ailment but with reference to second and third enquiries, while he appeared nobody else was present in the enquiry. He also sent a further representation dated 25.10.2004 that he has not been paid subsistence allowance from June 2004 though it was paid from 10.06.2003 till June 2004. In the enquiry held against the petitioner, the Board of Trustees found that the charges 1 to 11 were proved and Additional Charges 1 and 2 have also been proved. It was further held that because of the petitioner's misconduct and dishonest act, his continuance in the temple is not conducive in the interest of the temple. In the light of the same, he was dismissed from service in terms of Section 56(1) of the H.R. & C.E.Act. The said order of dismissal was signed by the President of the Board as well as 4 trustees.