AR N SUPPIYAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed under the Respondent No.2 Corporation as a lower category Overseer Draughtsman in 1960. Subsequently he was promoted as Junior Engineer in 1968 and thereafter he was promoted as Executive Engineer in October, 1979 and continue to hold such post till he retired in the year 1993. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order in G.O.(D) No.466 dated 21.8.1988 wherein the punishment was imposed directing the reduction of pension at the rate of Rs.50/- for a period of six months. THE petitioner has also prayed that he should be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to such post, as the petitioner was not considered for such promotion due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. THE petitioner has further prayed for payment of all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and revised pension on the aforesaid basis.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the charge relating to holding of properties disproportionate to the known source of income having not been established, the respondents should not have imposed any punishment on the basis of the allegations which had already been quashed by the High Court on earlier two occasions. A perusal of the order passed by the Respondent No.1 indicates that there is no categorical finding that the charges as laid against the petitioner had been proved. THE charge was to the effect that the property had been purchased in the name of wife beyond the known source of income of the petitioner. THE Enquiry officer had referred to the income Tax Return of the wife and had held that the charge had not been proved. THE Disciiplinary authority had not categorically differed from such finding. On the other hand, the disciplinary authority had referred to the Government servants' Conduct Rules as adopted by the Corporation in 1950 and to the subsequent bye-laws framed in the year 1983 and has come to the conclusion that the impugned transaction relating to the purchase of the property by the wife had not been notified to the Corporation or any fair permission had been obtained. Similar charge which was framed by the Corporation on earlier occasion had been quashed. In spite of such categorical judgment of the High Court , it is surprising that the disciplinary authority again referred to such allegation and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of not disclosing the transaction nor seeking prior permission. As already held on earlier occasion, the Government Servants' Conduct Rules were applicable to the employes of the Corporation where for the first time the bye-laws were framed in 1983. THE transaction had admittedly taken place prior to 1983 and only because of such admitted position, W.P.No.15631 of 1993 was allowed on 7. 2.1995 and such charges were quashed and the High Court had observed that it would be open to the Corporation to consider as to whether a fresh charge should be issued relating to the petitioner holding property disproportionate to the known source of income. THE Enquiry Oficer had found that such charge had not been established. In such view of the matter, there was no justification for the disciplinary authority to pass an order of punishment on basis of charges which had been quashed on earlier two occasions. THE matter had become final and it was not open to the disciplinary authority to sit in appeal to over come the decisions rendered by High Court on two earlier occasions, which were binding on the parties. It is evident that the order of punishment is fully unjustified and is hereby quashed .