A DHAKSHNAMOORTHY Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all these Writ Petitions is the one and the same person. THE petitioner was formerly working as Commercial Tax Officer-cum-Personal Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai East. THE petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.3.2000. Just before his superannuation, he was given a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules dated 18.2.2000. In the light of the charge memo, the petitioner was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. THE petitioner also was paid his pension with effect from 1.4.2000 and for the balance of gratuity amount after retaining certain amount covered by the Recovery Notice, the petitioner filed three Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal being O.A.Nos.2829 to 2831 of 2002.

(2.) THE three Original Applications were admitted on 7.5.2002. But, in O.A.No.2829 of 2002, an interim stay was granted on the same day, which interim order was also extended by a further order dated 28.6.2002. In the first Original Application being O.A.No.2829 of 2002, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.10.2001, wherein and by which the 1st respondent state asked the petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.200/- should not be recovered from his pension per month for a period of two years. This penalty was made in terms of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Before issuance of the show cause notice, on the basis of the charge memo given to the petitioner dated 23.2.2000 and after getting his explanation, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai East. He found that out of four charges, the 1st charge was proved and the three charges are partly proved. But the Government has disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and also held that all the four charges are fully proved. Disagreement Notice was also communicated to the petitioner and he has submitted a further explanation. Considering the fact that he has retired, accepting the enquiry officer's report, holding that the charges were proved, the petitioner was imposed with penalty as indicated above. Instead of submitting his explanation, the petitioner moved the Tribunal and obtained the interim order.

(3.) ON notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 23.6.2004 justifying the penalty. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9207 of 2005 before this Court seeking for transfer of all the three Original Applications pending before the Tribunal. This Court by an order dated 10.3.2005 directed the three Original Applications pending before the Tribunal to be transferred to this Court. Accordingly, the Tribunal forwarded all the three bundles under the covering letter dated 7.5.2005 and all the three Original Applications were renumbered as W.P.Nos.27043 to 27045 of 2005.