K ARUMUGAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 28.6.2011, and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.1.2008, and consequently, direct the first respondent to settle the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner.

(3.) It has been stated that the petitioner had been working as an Executive Officer in the third respondent Town Panchayat, from the month of February, 2002. On 30.6.2005, which was his last day in service, he had been placed under suspension and a charge memo, dated 29.6.2005, had been issued to him, containing eight charges. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had issued 53 'No objection' certificates, in respect of a number of plots in the unapproved layout, in consolidated Survey No.90/1B3, on 26.7.2002. The second charge against the petitioner was that he had issued 'No objection' certificates, in respect of the plots having an extent of 702 square feet, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which contemplates that the plots should have a minimum extent of 900 square feet. The third charge against the petitioner is that he had failed to collect the development charges, at the rate of Rs.6.50 per square feet in respect of the 53 plots relating to which he had issued the 'No objection' certificates, causing a revenue loss to the State Government, to the extent of Rs.8,15,724/-. The fourth charge is that the petitioner had not collected an amount of Rs.3,63,000/-, from the promoter of the layout in question, causing revenue loss to the third respondent. The fifth charge was that he had not issued 'Account payee' cheques to certain third parties, even though the cheque amount was above Rs.500/-. The sixth charge levelled against the petitioner was that the accounts had not been finalized for the year 2004-2005, till 15.5.2005. The seventh charge was that the petitioner had not properly maintained the demand registers for tax and non-taxable items. The eighth charge was that he had failed in his duties and responsibilities.