S. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is the transferred O.A.No.4735/2002 filed on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the first respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.557, Revenue Department dated 31.10.2000.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer. He was arrested on 03.03.1989 and produced before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri by the Vigilance and Anticorruption Department in C.C.No.17/90 for an offence said to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, by the judgment dated 26.07.1995, the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner. On 16.07.1996, the first respondent Government issued G.O.Ms.No.185, Revenue Department, directing the initiation of departmental proceedings for the same set of charges. Consequently, a charge memo was issued on 28.11.1997. An enquiry was conducted and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.05.1998, holding that the charges as not proved. Consequently, the second respondent through his order dated 24.06.1998 dropped the charges against the petitioner and directed him to submit a separate application for full wages for the period of suspension and for treating the same as on duty. However, after a period of 1 1/2 years from the date of the said order, the first respondent Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 08.02.2000 under Rule 36 of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by exercising its suo moto power of review for holding the charges to prove and impose penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.06.2000. Thereafter, the first respondent Government passed the impugned G.O. on 31.10.2000 imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Thus, the said order of the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.