LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-195

P. S. RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On January 02, 2023
P. S. Ramalingam Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein had been recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondents Department in the year 1970 and was later promoted to the cadres of Assistant and Superintendent. During his tenure of service as Superintendent on deputation in Arulmigu Subramanisami Thirukoil, Thiruchenthur, he was implicated for three charges of misconducts under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), through a charge memo dtd. 17/9/2007, alleging that he had placed orders of photo pictures, dollars and key chains from Madurai Jayalakshmi Photos for sale by the temple at the cost of Rs.15,00,000.00 and had received forged quotations, by deliberately flouting and violating the tender rules and procedures. Not being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the petitioner on 30/11/2007 to the levelled charges, a departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges were held to be 'not proved', in the enquiry report dtd. 25/2/2010.

(2.) The Government/first respondent herein, through their letter dtd. 16/9/2010, deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the charges as 'proved' and after assigning reasons, had called upon the employee to render his further explanation. The petitioner had given his further written explanation on 24/9/2010. Thereafter, the second respondent herein, through his proceedings dtd. 30/9/2010, had placed the petitioner under suspension and did not allow him to retire from service, on reaching the age of superannuation. After about three years, the opinion of the TNPSC was obtained on 25/11/2013 and ultimately, the Government had passed the impugned order dtd. 24/2/2014, imposing the punishment of removal from service. Challenging the said order of punishment, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following four grounds, challenging the impugned order:-