S SARALA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an Assistant Treasury Officer at Palacode in Dharmapuri District. On 03.05.1993, the petitioner deputed the Cashier Mr.K.M.Jegadeesan and the Office Assistant Mr.M.K.Gandhi to the State Bank of India at Palacode to draw a sum of Rs.90,000/- for disbursing pension to the pensioners. But, the amount of Rs.90,000/- was stolen at the bank by unknown persons. Based on the aforesaid incident, the Treasury Officer issued a charge sheet dated 28.05.1993 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. THE crux of the allegation was that the petitioner was negligent in her duties. She should have accompanied the Cashier and Office Assistant as the amount exceeded Rs.50,000/-. THE petitioner permitted the subordinate officials to carry the Cash in a Cloth Bag instead of a Cash Box. She failed to supervise the subordinate officials and she was not responsible in her duties. It was also alleged that she was responsible for the loss of the Government money of Rs.90,000/-.

(2.) AN enquiry was conducted on the charges. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report. The second respondent passed an order dated 08.01.1999, imposing the punishment of recovery of Rs.30,000/- from the petitioner and also withholding the promotion. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 22.02.1999 and the appeal was allowed by the first respondent in G.O.2D No.32, dated 21.02.2000, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts dated 08.01.1999 and the matter was remitted back to the second respondent to hold the enquiry and to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, the enquiry was held and the order dated 11.04.2001 was passed imposing the punishment of demotion from Assistant Treasury officer/Senior Superintendent to Sub Treasury Officer/Superintendent for a period of one year and also for recovery of Rs.30,000/- being the 1/3rd amount of loss of Government money of Rs.90,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.3201 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, against the said impugned order dated 11.04.2001. While admitting the original application, the Tribunal granted interim stay of demotion. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in the post of Assistant Treasury Officer and she also retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2005. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter has been transferred and renumbered as W.P.No.13128 of 2005.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be interfered, insofar as, imposing the punishment of demotion is concerned, since no punishment was imposed on Mr.K.M.Jegadeesan, Cashier and Mr.M.K.Gandhi, Office Assistant, while they were directly responsible for the lose of Rs.90,000/-, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Man Singh vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 518 (SC).