S.SUBBIAH Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner herein, who was an Assistant did not have the authority to issue patta and his limited responsibility is to forward the application seeking for patta to the ASO with a note on the nature of application. Since the petitioner did not have authority to issue pattas and also since he had no powers to order the superiors with the note on the implication of the procedure or powers of the ASO to grant patta, the charges itself are baseless. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of about 10 years from framing of the charges till the impugned order was passed and therefore the entire inquiry, resulting in the impugned punishment, is liable to be quashed.