S.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order, dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Inspector General Registration, Chennai, the second respondent herein, suspending the petitioner and the consequential order of the first respondent, dated 27.11.2009, in not permitting the petitioner to retire and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by issuance of a charge memorandum framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichirappalli, dated 12.05.2010, the petitioner has sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the abovesaid orders and consequently prayed for a direction to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Registration and Commercial Taxes, Chennai, to allow the petitioner to retire with all retirement and monetary benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, initially, he was appointed as a Section Writer in the office of the Sub Registrar at Annavasal, Pudukottai District and gradually, he became Sub Registrar (Guideline) and was working in the office of the District Registrar, Pattukottai. According to the petitioner, he had rendered unblemished service throughout his career. While so, some of the them who had grudge against the petitioner, seemed to have indulged in mudslinging campaign and sent complaints. An Enquiry was ordered by the first respondent. A Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations and that a report was submitted on 10.12.2008. While that be so, just few days before the retirement, the Inspector General Registration, Chennai, the second respondent herein, by an order dated 25.11.2009 has suspended the petitioner alleging corruption. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.11.2009. Thereafter, on 27.11.2009, an order was passed not permitting the petitioner to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and that the petitioner has been retained in service until, the enquiry into the charges are completed.

(3.) ASSAILING the correctness of the action taken against the petitioner, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension of the petitioner is wholly unwarranted for the reason that if there was any incriminating material against the petitioner involving corruption, action could have been taken even in the year 2006 itself and that the suspension is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reform (N) Departments, dated 08.06.2007, whereas the Government have issued instructions to avoid suspension on the eve of retirement of a Government servant. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, when the Government have specifically ordered that the disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servant particularly on the date of retirement and further ordered that if any irregularities or an offence committed by the Government servant comes to the notice within a period of three months prior to the date of retirement, the disciplinary authority shall process, the case on war-footing and take a decision either to permit the Government servant to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary case or place him under suspension based on gravity or irregularities committed by him, the respondents have failed to adhere to the Government guidelines and unnecessarily placed the petitioner under suspension on some vague allegations of corruption for the period between August 2006 and October 2007.