P. SINGARAVELU Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of punishment imposed by the Government vide G.O. (2D) No. 84, Industries Department, dated 23.10.2007. By the impugned order, the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Director of Geology and Mining at Dharmapuri, was removed from service. The removal order came to be made after getting an opinion of the TNPSC which had also concurred with the stand of the Government vide their opinion dated 18.7.2005. The petitioner was charge sheeted alleging that he had contravened the Government Servants Conduct Rules. There were as many as six charges. The major charge was that he had acquired movable and immovable properties in his name as well as in the name of his family members to a tune of Rs. 4,31,700.51 during the check period from 1.5.1981 to 30.4.1988 which was disproportionate to the known source of his income. He had also contravened the Government Servant Conduct Rules in the purchase of lands at various places and an house site. He was also charge sheeted for construction of a house in the name of his wife at Dharmapuri. He was further charge sheeted for the investment and lending in the name of his wife at Dharmapuri. Further, he had purchased a Scooter (Moped) in the name of his son. He was also running a flour and oil mill at Jettihalli in Dharmapuri District in the name of his wife along with two other partners.

(2.) AFTER the charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as the petitioner was about to reach the age of superannuation on 31.8.1999, the State Government had issued an order in G.O. (3D)No. 77, Industries Department, dated 31.8.1999 refusing to permit him from retiring from service. An enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who had also submitted a report stating that the first charge was not proved, the second charge was partially proved and charges 3,4 and 6 lacking substance and charge No. 5 was proved. A notice was issued disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer and holding all the charges were proved except the second charge which was partially proved. The petitioner had further submitted an explanation on the dissent note on 9.8.1999. It is pursuant to the same, the State Government considered all relevant materials and after consulting TNPSC had passed the impugned order. It was found that the petitioner's defence that the properties were purchased by his wife cannot be believed as she had no independent source of income to purchase the properties. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 5.1.2008. Subsequently, it was admitted on 18.11.2010. On notice from this court, the first respondent State has filed a counter affidavit, dated 27.01.2012. The contention of the petitioner that the views of the TNPSC should have been communicated to him in advance before its acceptance does not stand to reason as no such obligations have been cast in terms of Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Union of India v. T.V. Patel reported in : (2007) 4 SCC 785 has held in paragraphs 11, 23 to 25 as follows :

(3.) THE Supreme Court vide its judgment in Praveen Bhatia Vs. Union of India reported in : 2009 (4) SCC 225 held that even the delay in submitting the property returns itself is a serious misconduct. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the following passage found in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment.