K. MURUGESAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the charge memo issued by the first respondent, dated 21.12.2009 and the proceedings appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquiry him into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Registration Department as 'Junior Assistant' in the year 1973. He was promoted as 'Assistant'. Thereafter, further promotion as 'Sub Registrar' was given in the year 1989 and thereafter, he was appointed as 'District Registrar' in the year 2009. While he was working as 'District Registrar' at Tuticorin, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 22.12.2009, wherein a charge was contemplated under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for levying lesser stamp duty with regard to certain registered documents, while he was working as No.1 Joint Sub Registrar at Palayamkottai. After issuing the above said charge memo, the petitioner was permitted to retire by proceedings in GO (D)No.566/Commercial Taxes and Registration (H1) Department, dated 31.12.2009. No orders under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules was issued retaining the service of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to retire, without there-being any order retaining in service. While that being so, the first respondent, through proceedings, dated 19.02.2010 appointed the second respondent as 'Enquiry Officer' to enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was under the impression that the charges levelled against him was dropped, as he was permitted to retire without retaining him in service. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed in pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 19.02.2010, by challenging those proceedings on very many grounds, out of which the main ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to proceed against the petitioner, without passing an order under Rule 56(1)(c) to retain him in service.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as against the very same petitioner, another charge memo was issued, dated 22.12.2009 and the same was also challenged before this court in W.P.(MD)No.11377 of 2010 on the very same ground, namely absence of proceedings under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules.