K KESAVARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4403 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order dated 06.10.1999 passed in G.O.(D) No.458, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department by the first respondent herein. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of six months.

(2.) EARLIER when the petitioner was working as a Market Superintendent of the Erode Municipality was proceeded under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The petitioner was given a charge memo for his various acts of commissions and omissions while discharging his duties as Market Superintendent in the Erode Municipality. In respect of the charge memo, the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Tiruppur was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he found that the petitioner, being the Market Superintendent, Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Officer and Commissioner are all jointly responsible in respect of the charges. But in the case of the petitioner, it was stated that in respect of the first charge namely that he was responsible for waiving four months rent that recoverable from one Tmt.A.Ramayee from 01.04.1995 to 31.07.1995, he held the first charge proved. The second charge was that he allowed the lessee of Nethaji Market, Erode to collect the daily rent of Rs.10/- per stall from 154 unauthorised stalls and caused financial loss. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner has failed to guide the Commissioner and partly responsible for the loss caused. The third charge relates to the failure to cancel the lease deed of the lessees viz., Tmt.Uma Maheswari and Tmt.A.Ramayee who are sub-letting their shops to others. The Enquiry Officer found that there is no proof in respect of the third charge and held the charge as not proved. In respect of the fourth charge there was no agreement from the lessee Tmt.A.Ramayee for having possession of the third floor. The findings in respect of the fourth charge was that not only the petitioner, but also the Assistant Revenue Officer, Revenue Officer and the Commissioner are jointly responsible and held that the petitioner was partly responsible. Based upon the report submitted by the Regional Director, the State Government passed the impugned order in G.O.(D) No.458, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 06.10.1999 and on the basis of the proved charges, the State Government imposed the penalty. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4403 of 2000.

(3.) MR.P.Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that as against the order passed by the Tribunal, there was no challenge either by the Government or by the Municipality and that order became final and what applies to the case of the Revenue Officer MR.M.Natarajan squarely applies to the case of the petitioner as the charges are identical.