J. DAISY RANI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Typist on 14.11.1994 in the office of the District Registrar, Dindigul. Subsequently, she was promoted as Assistant during 1997.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as Assistant in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul, 12 persons were employed including the petitioner. On 16.09.2008, 9 persons were on leave. The petitioner and another person viz., Subbiah were Assistants, who were on duty on 16.09.2008. The other person was the Office Assistant Tr. Palani. Surprise check was conducted by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. At the time of surprise check, Tr.Subbiah was not in the office. He went to the Treasury Office on official work. Based on the surprise check, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules dated 19.02.2012 was issued both to the petitioner as well as to the Office Assistant Tr.Palani. Three charges were made against the petitioner and those charges are as follows:

(3.) SEPARATE counter affidavits are filed by the respondents refuting the allegations. According to the respondents, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order dated 19.12.2011 of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai before the Government. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, for not availing the alternative remedy. On merits also, it is averred that there is no infirmity in the differed view of the Inspector General of Registration and the consequent punishment imposed on the petitioner.