K SELVARAJ Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.09.1999 made in Memorandum No.9861/520/A4/99-3 confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.09.1999 made in memo No.544/ADM.V(1)/F.DP/98-1 quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with attendant benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labourer in the year 1971; later on promoted as a Tester Grade II in the year 1972; as Tester Grade I in the year 1981. In the year 1984 he was selected as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by internal selection. While so, on 04.02.1992 he was arrested in a criminal case for having demanded and accepted bribe. But he was released on bail on the very same day. The criminal case was not prosecuted further as no charge sheet was filed. On the other hand, he was proceeded departmentally. A charge memo was issued on 09.05.1993 that he demanded gratification of Rs.2000/-on 04.02.1992 and accepted Rs.1000/-. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved then he was dismissed from service. Against that he preferred an appeal and that was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents filed counter, admitting the fact of the petitioner's appointment and promotion, and have stated that the petitioner was also earlier imposed a punishment of 'stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect' for having committed certain serious lapses in discharging his official duties, during October, 1991; the service record of the petitioner does not speak about his sincerity in his duties; that the petitioner was trapped and arrested for a corruption case based on a complaint filed by one A.R.Palanisamy of Anangur, Thiruchengode Taluk against the petitioner at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem and registered as Crime No.2/AC/92 on 03.02.1992; that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe Rs.1000/- from the said A.R.Palanisamy, the petitioner was caught red handed; and the petitioner was subjected to the phenophthalene test and found that the results were slightly positive. Inasmuch as the discreet enquiry into the matter led to show that there was prima facie case noticed on the part of the petitioner, specific charges were framed against him by proceedings dated 19.05.1993.The petitioner was directed to submit his defence statement for the said charges levelled against him within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has requested certain documents and also time to submit his defence statement. The petitioner was allowed to peruse the documents by memo dated 07.04.1994. The petitioner has submitted his explanation along with the questionnaire duly filled up. Thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on 04.04.1998. After careful examination of the relevant records, evidence in the enquiry proceedings, the first respondent has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer; a copy of the enquiry findings has also been communicated to the petitioner on 16.05.1998 with instructions to submit further representations on the findings of the inquiry and the petitioner submitted his representation on 05.06.1998 and the same was also examined. The petitioner has neither adduced any fresh points nor produced any valid records to prove his innocence of the charges. The first respondent awarded a punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is no valid ground to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.