P. PONNUM PERUMAL Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC), COMMERCIAL TAXES & REGISTRATION (H) DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based on a surprise check conducted on 8/12/2008 in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Ganapathy Sub-Registrar Office, Coimbatore District, it is alleged that some cash was found in the tapal tray of the petitioner for which the petitioner herein could not satisfactorily account for and accordingly, four charges came to be framed against him, under the charge memo dtd. 17/2/2011 issued by the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore in T.D.P. Case No.20 of 2010. The prosecution for disciplinary proceedings had examined 14 prosecution witnesses and marked 12 documents. After closure of the examination of the prosecution and defence evidence, the petitioner had filed his written statement and arguments. While charge No.1 was held as "not proved", charge No.4 as "partially proved" and charge Nos.2 and 3 as "proved", based on the proven charges, further explanation was called for from the petitioner herein. On 1/6/2016, the petitioner herein had given a detailed explanation seeking to exonerate him from the charges. Rejecting the further representation, the Government had passed G.O.(D)No.336, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dtd. 19/9/2016, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years, with cumulative effect. As against, a review petition filed before the Government, the punishment was confirmed through G.O.(D)No.344, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dtd. 22/8/2017. Challenging these two orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though he had given a detailed explanation, after charges against him were held to be proved, the disciplinary authority namely, the Government had not taken into account of the explanation and had passed an order without such consideration. He further submitted that even in the review petition, the ground raised by him has not been considered.

(3.) A perusal of the order of punishment dtd. 19/9/2016 would reveal that, though the order runs to about 7 pages, what is found therein is the extract of the charges, defence statement of the delinquent officer, the findings of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and further explanation of the delinquent officer on the findings of the Tribunal. Apart from this, the consideration finds place at the last paragraph of the order, which states that "after careful and independent examination of the charge framed against the delinquent officer, his defence statement, findings of the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and his further representation on the findings of the Tribunal the Government has proposed to hold the charge framed against Thiru.P.Ponnumperumal held as proved and for the proven charge, the Government have decided to impose a punishment of "stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect" and issue orders accordingly. The Government also orders that, this penalty is inclusive of the period spent on leave and it will affect his pension".