(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent dated 16.11.2010 in GO (3D) No. 196 Agri VN 17 Department, dismissing the petitioner from service with a prayer to quash the same and to direct the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits to the petitioner.
(2.) Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities and illegalities and put forward the following contentions-
(3.) Per contra, Mr. D. Venkatachalam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. It is contended that the charges are also very clear and specific and it cannot be stated to be vague. Learned Government Advocate further contended that the petitioner was afforded opportunity at every and only after affording opportunity and after receiving the explanations and after considering the documentary evidence available on record, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order of punishment.