SPECIAL COMMISSIONER Vs. E RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Respondent has focused the present Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 19.04.2010 in W.P.No.45350 of 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.45350 of 2006, on 19.04.2010 (filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner) has inter alia observed in Paragraph 7 that '... In this case, even though the Charge Memos were issued during February and April 1998, alleging misappropriation and embezzlements of funds and enquiry was conducted, just three months prior to the retirement of the Petitioner, he was removed from service. Furthermore, the punishment is a bit harsh and excessive, considering the nature of charges levelled against the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner had put in 28 years of service in the Department and considering the long number of years of service put in by the Petitioner, this Court has been inclined to modify the punishment into one of compulsory retirement so as to enable the Petitioner (Respondent), who is presently 67 years, to get some benefits' and consequently, allowed the Writ Petition without costs.

(3.) The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent submits that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate a pivotal fact that many complaints were received against the Respondent/Petitioner and the Joint Commissioner of the Appellant/HR & CE Department verified the records based on the reports furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department and charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.