K. MURUGESAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGAPATTINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) The petitioner, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) was served with a charge memo dtd. 10/6/2013, stating that owing to the incorrect list of beneficiaries for grant of drought relief to the affected farmers, the Government had incurred a loss of Rs.5,23,050.00. Pursuant to the charges, an enquiry was conducted and based on proved charges under the inquiry report dtd. 18/3/2014, the second respondent herein had passed the impugned order dtd. 13/8/2014, directing the petitioner to pay the amount of loss incurred by the Government amounting to Rs.5,06,550.00 together with 40% penalty amounting to Rs.2,02,620.00. The said order is under challenge in W.P.No.23369 of 2014. Subsequently, since the petitioner was due to retire on 31/8/2014, he was placed under suspension on 31/8/2014 and on the same day, another order was passed by not permitting him to retire on the date of superannuation. These two orders are under challenge in W.P.No.5034 of 2015.

(3.) In the enquiry, the only finding against the petitioner was that, in his reply to the charges, he had admitted the lapses committed by him while preparing the beneficiaries list and therefore he is liable for the loss that had occurred to the Government. However, a perusal of the reply, as well as the further representation pursuant to the inquiry report, reveals that though the petitioner has stated that some inadvertent mistakes may have occurred, he had taken a specific stand that after preparation of the beneficiaries list for the drought relief, he had forwarded the same to the Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar, who had all accepted the beneficiaries list. He had further stated that no action has been taken against the other officials, but he had alone been charged for the mistake.