M.MEENAKSHINATHAN Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.14712 of 2009, dated 18.11.2010, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, upholding the order impugned therein.

(2.) According to the appellant-writ petitioner, while he was working as Assistant Inspector of Sericulture, during the financial year 2008-2009, a quantity of 24750 CRR Hybrid Layings were not taken delivery by the officials concerned in the months of January, February and March 2009 and it had resulted in stagnation of the layings at the Grainage. Therefore, he was issued with a charge memo, by the respondent, under Rule 17[a] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, to the effect that the appellant-writ petitioner made a belated request seeking ratification after a period of four months, thus causing loss to the respondent. The appellant-writ petitioner gave his explanation to the effect that the ratification report was given in a bunch, at the end of the financial year 2009, and therefore, there is no motive behind the belated request made for ratification. On a consideration of the explanation given by the appellant, the respondent,in and by the order dated 22.7.2009, imposed a punishment ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.86,625/- to be recovered every month from his salary. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, after considering the materials available on record. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Mr.S.Vaithianathan, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though charges have been framed under Rule 17[a] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, considering the facts of the case, which involve disputed questions, an enquiry ought to have been ordered. It is the specific case of the appellant that the other Officers are responsible for the alleged loss. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon certain documents filed by way of additional typed set of papers. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon three decisions, viz., [i] [Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, 2001 9 SCC 180], [ii] W.P.[MD] No.6298 of 2010 [E.Ramakrishnan v. The Conservator of Forest, Madurai Circle] and [iii] W.P.No.11712 of 2007 [OA No.2113 of 2002] [P.Swamikannu v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore].