C. VARADAPPAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of suspension made in Roc. 10664/2004/A3 dated 29.09.2004 and the consequential charge memo in Roc. 10664/2004/A3 dated 18.10.2004 and the order in Na. Ka. No. 10664/04/A3 dated 02.03.2006 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding and initiating any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner till the conclusion of the criminal trial in respect of criminal case registered in Crime No. 7/Ac/2004, on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, Dharmapuri. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer in Gujjarahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District; since 16.09.2004. There was a counselling held on 19.09.2004 at the office of the first respondent for allotment of Villages to the Village Administrative Officers and on the date of counselling, 3 Village Administrative Officers had not attended the counselling out of 12 Village Administrative Officers for 12 Villages which are under the Administrative control of Palacode Taluk. The petitioner had given a representation dated 20.09.2004 to the first respondent regarding the irregularities in making transfers, wherein he had mentioned the seniority list and as per the list, he was the sixth senior most Village Administrative Officer in the Taluk. However, the petitioner's request was not considered for posting him as Village Administrative Officer of a particular village. The petitioner has stated that a false case was foisted against him in order to avoid competition. However, the order of suspension was issued on 29.09.2004 suspending him from service. The petitioner was arrested for the alleged offence of getting bribe from a villager for issuing no objection certificate towards changing the electricity service connection in the name of a particular villager.

(2.) The petitioner has further stated that the de facto complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, based on which, mahazar was prepared. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that apart from the departmental proceeding; initiated against the petitioner, criminal case was also registered against him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner both the criminal case and departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, are based on the same set of facts. The petitioner had been issued with a charge memo dated 18.10.2004, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, framing the following charges:

(3.) The petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 16537 of 2005 and the same was disposed of on 11.05.2005 and that the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: