PALANI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are directed against the orders dated 16 July, 2010 on the file of Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat (E2) Department, whereby and whereunder the review petitions filed by the petitioners were rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner is an employee of Panchayat Department. He was issued with a charge sheet on 20 December, 2006, alleging that he threatened and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000.00 for the purpose of granting licence to a Saw Mill run by Muthu Sarmila at Door No.1/11A, Kaliamman Kovil Street, Shanmugapuram. The second charge relates to permitting the Saw Mill to function for a period of three months without licence. On the basis of those two charges, the department opined that the petitioner violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The petitioner submitted a reply in answer to the charge sheet. The reply was not convincing and as such, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report. According to the enquiry officer, the first charge of bribe was not proved. However, the enquiry officer reported that the second charge was proved. The enquiry report was, thereafter, considered by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of four years with cumulative effect. The said order was challenged by way of a review petition before the first respondent. The review was rejected on 16 July, 2010. The said order is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners advanced arguments extensively on merits. The learned counsel made a preliminary objection with respect to the orders passed by the reviewing authority. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent (Mr.Ashok Vardhan Shetty, I.A.S.) originally acted as the disciplinary authority. By the time the review petitions were taken up for hearing, he was appointed as the Principal Secretary. The first respondent in his capacity as Principal Secretary heard the arguments and the review petitions were dismissed. Therefore, the first respondent acted as the disciplinary authority as well as the reviewing authority. The review orders are liable to be set aside on the said ground alone.