V. GNANASUNDARI Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PUDUKOTTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order, dtd. 25/10/2021 in A.No.108/2021-A, served on her on 22/11/2021 on the file of the first respondent appointing an Enquiry Officer as arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the first respondent to furnish the copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure III and the statements of the witnesses mentioned in Annexure IV to the Charge Memo, dtd. 5/8/2021 to submit her detailed reply within the time stipulated.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was working as Senior Sheristadar in the District Court, Pudukottai. On 19/4/2021, when the petitioner was on deputation duty at Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukottai served an Office Memorandum, dtd. 15/4/2021 to the petitioner informing that a list of 37 cases have been found to be filed with colour photocopies of Court Fees Stamps during the inspection and audit in the year 2016. It is found that while she was working as a Sheristadar, she has been negligent and she was asked to prove her case on 22/4/2021. The petitioner submitted request to furnish the copies of all documents. By proceedings dtd. 29/4/2021, the petitioner was permitted to peruse the records on 7/5/2021. The petitioner submitted an explanation with available information on 12/5/2021. But, the explanation was not considered.

(3.) The first respondent issued a Charge Memo along with specific charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on 5/8/2021. In the Charge Memo, the first respondent relied on the statements of witnesses, evidence of G.Venkatramani, Sheristadar and M.Palanichamy, Central Nazir, who have inspected and found the alleged fake stamp papers. But, no oral and documentary evidence was furnished to the petitioner despite a specific request made on 24/8/2021 by the petitioner. Without furnishing relevant papers and giving time to submit an effective explanation, the first respondent issued order to appoint an Enquiry Officer. No preliminary enquiry was conducted before deciding to issue the Charge Memo. The first respondent issued the impugned order on 25/10/2021 in A.No.108/2021-A and the same was served to the petitioner on 22/11/2021. The first respondent without furnishing the documents and statements of witnesses to the petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer, which is totally arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.