P.NATARAJAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 30.8.2011 made in W.P.No.13993 of 2009, declining to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the appellant was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Executive Officer, Kapaleeshwarar Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, on 20.6.1985, as a Junior Assistant. While he was performing the work, the Honourable Chief Minister had announced the programme of free marriage scheme to be performed by the temple and by the order of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, the appellant was identified as the employee responsible towards the execution of the scheme. By order dated 3.3.2003 the appellant was made responsible to assist Annadhana Scheme announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu and by an order dated 14.3.2003, he was required to execute additional duties of the Revenue Department of the temple. While so, all of a sudden, the appellant was served with an order dated 14.3.2003 alleging that there was an omission on his part in carrying out day -to -day duties of the work assigned by order dated 14.3.2003.

(3.) THE Trust Board assumed office of the fit person and the Trust Board issued a notice on 16.10.2004 calling upon the appellant for re -enquiry on 25.10.2004. The appellant presented himself on 25.10.2004 and he reiterated his explanation submitted before the authority on that day and thereupon, he was intimated that enquiry in terms of law would be conducted and he could present himself by adducing necessary evidence. But he was served with an order of termination dated 23.12.2004. Challenging the order of termination the appellant filed a revision before the Commissioner HR & CE Department, Chennai, in R.P.No.75 of 2006 and the appellate authority by order dated 23.12.2004, rejected the revision confirming the order of termination. In nutshell the case of the appellant is that after his appointment as Junior Assistant, additional works were assigned to him and within a short span of time, the respondents issued the charge memos and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. Against the orders of the respondents, the appellant filed the writ petition.