S ABDULLAKHAN Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have been filed by one Abdullakhan, who was working with the Vegambur Town Panchayat, Erode District. In the first-mentioned writ petition, the prayer is for setting aside the order passed in the original application (O.A. No.1841 of 1989) filed by the petitioner before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. By that original application, the petitioner had challenged the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against him. In the second writ petition also, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the order of the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had confirmed the earlier orders in the departmental enquiry No.140/88 Ref.No.2568/88/A3, dated 3-4-1989, and G.O. Ms. No.479. The following facts will highlight the controversy.

(2.) The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) and was posted at Vengambur Town Panchayat. He had joined the services in his capacity as Junior Assistant in Krishnagiri Town Panchayat and after about 40 years of service, he rose to that position. He was served with the disciplinary proceedings, which were to be tried by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore. There were few charges proposed which were in the nature of corruption charges in the sense that he is said to have acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The second charge pertained to the construction of a house without prior permission. It is pointed out in the original application that he had already attained the age of retirement on superannuation on 31-8-1985. However, he was suspended by an order dated 29-8-1985 and was not allowed to retire from the service and thereby he was deprived of the terminal benefits which he would have otherwise had. It seems that the petitioner filed two original applications before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. In one application, he challenged the suspension order and in the other, he challenged the very validity of the proceedings on the ground that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the departmental enquiry as he himself could not be said to be a Government Servant .

(3.) Both these original applications came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the suspension was called for inasmuch as there was material against the petitioner and in the wake of the availability of that material, the suspension had to be the only course to be adopted by the Government. It seems that very feebly it was tried to be argued before the Tribunal that there was no material worth the name for initiating the departmental enquiry. The Tribunal has dealt with that aspect also and has recorded a finding that there was material available for trying the petitioner departmentally through the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.