SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. M PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the State against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.104 made in O.A.No.7332 of 1993 dated 19.08.1997.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows: The first respondent herein entered service as Gramasevak Grade II on 04.10.1954 and retired as Divisional Development Officer on 31.08.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was allowed to retire without prejudice to an enquiry into allegations pending against him. He was sanctioned only a provisional pension and 75% of the Death cum Retirement Gratuity and also the commuted value of pension on the basis of G.O.(2D)No.195, Rural Development Department dated 27.08.1992.Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.7332 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to disburse all the balance of pensionary benefits due to the first respondent with interest at 18% per annum from the expiry of two months from the date of retirement and the disbursement should be made within a period of twelve weeks from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the writ petition to quash the said order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

(3.) The first respondent herein filed counter-affidavit stating that when he was working as Additional Block Development Officer, Sengottai, Tirunelveli District, he had placed orders on 25.01.1990 for the supply and erection of 3 Publicity Boards for National Rural Employment Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Scheme works, two publicity board for Jawahar Velaivaippu Thittam and seven publicity board for social forestry scheme, through one A.Ayothiraman, the Assistant Director of Khadi and Village Industries, Tirunelveli only in the official capacity and not in connivance with the said A.Ayothiraman. The first respondent had made payment since the amount including the transport charges and erection charges were found to be reasonable. The petitioners herein framed charges against the first respondent that he had made excess payment of Rs.8680/- for the twelve boards. But no details were given as to how this amount was arrived at. There is no excess payment made by him. Further, excess amount has been noted as Rs.10540/-in the charge memo whereas in the petition, it is mentioned as Rs.8680/- A.Ayothiaraman was not known to him nor the firm M/s Sri Seetha Traders Ambasambudram. The first respondent placed orders to the Assistant Director of Khadi and Village Industries, Tirunelveli, who in turn directed their society. No disciplinary action was pending against him on the date of retirement. The government framed charges only on 17.03.1994. It is against the rules. The amounts alleged to have been specified in the charge is different from the amounts specified in the vigilance enquiry report. This shows that the petitioners' authorities have not applied their minds while initiating disciplinary proceedings. Further, the delay caused in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiates entire proceedings. Though charges were framed on 17.03.1994 till now no final orders have been passed. The Government did not file counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The Director of Local Fund Accounts, Chennai in his letter No.D.Dis.79847/92/A6 dated 14.10.1997 has sent no objection certificate to the Director of Rural Development, Chennai for the release of 25% of the Death cum Retirement Gratuity. As such Rs.10,000/-withheld at the time of his retirement (ie) on 31.08.1992 and Rs.12,500/- being the 25% of the DCRG have to be released. He is eligible to get interest for that Rs.10,000/-