D. NEELAMEGAM Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.4.2003 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4047 of 2002 and the Proceedings No. 21011/B1/95 dated 23.12.1998/6.1.1999 passed by the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, an employee under the Registration Department, in course of time was promoted as Sub-Registrar and at present working as Grade-I Sub-Registrar with effect from 4.2.2002. The disciplinary proceedings No. 21011/L3/B1/95 dated 29.12.1995 was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (C. C & A) Rules. The gravamen of the charge was to the effect that the petitioner while working as Sub-Registrar in Arani had made corrections in the Guideline Registers of Arani Town beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 20(1) and 20(3)(1) of the Government Servant Conduct Rules. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. It has been pointed out by the petitioner that the corrections had been made before the Registers had been placed before the Guideline Committee, which has fixed the value. Accordingly, the petitioner requested that the proceedings should be dropped. However, Deputy Inspector General of Registration was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After holding enquiry, such authority came to the conclusion that the corrections had been made by the present petitioner before the matter had been placed before the Guideline Committee and the Registrar, and after approval of the Guideline Registers no correction had been made by the present petitioner and the instructions had been followed. Accordingly the petitioner was completely exonerated by the enquiry officer.

(3.) Subsequently, however, the Inspector General of Registration did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against him. The substance of the notice issued by the Inspector General is to the effect that corrections had been made after the Guideline Registers had been approved by the Guideline Committee and the District Registrar. The petitioner again filed a detailed explanation explaining the circumstances under which corrections had been made. It has been reiterated by him that the corrections had been made on 27.3.1992 and thereafter the Registers were placed before the Guideline Committee on 28.3.2002 and were approved as such and subsequently placed before the District Registrar. It was also clearly indicated by him that no witness had deposed about any correction allegedly made after 1.4.1992. The Inspector General of Registration, however, did not accept such explanation and after pointing out that the corrections had not been countersigned or initialled by the Guideline Committee or by the District Registrar, came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved and accordingly imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect.