RAMACHANDRAN Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner is absent. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well as all connected documents.

(2.) THE present petitioner had filed O.A.No.4145 of 1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal for quashing the Memo in R.C. No.55573/EG2/99 dated 6.7.1999 issued by the third respondent,viz., the Director Industries and Commerce. THE said memo had been issued to the present petitioner under the following circumstances: THE petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce as Manager (Materials), District Industries Centre, Nagapattinam. He had come on transfer from Trichy to Nagapattinam and according to him, a balance pay advance of Rs.5660/- was payable to him as per rules. THE said amount was sanctioned by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Trichy on 8.4.1999 and the Assistant Director of Electronic Industrial Estate, Trichy -15 was directed to claim the bill, so that the amount could be paid to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the bill was prepared and presented at Huzur Treasury, Trichy. THE petitioner, who required the money urgently made enquiry regarding the bill in the relevant section of the treasury and he was informed that'pass order'was put up on the bill and sent to the Assistant Treasury Officer for approval. At that stage, the petitioner requested the Assistant Treasury Officer to pass the bill. THE petitioner claims that the Assistant Treasury Officer demanded Rs.100/- for passing the bill which the petitioner had refused. Subsequently the bill was returned on the basis of some imaginary queries. THE petitioner made a complaint before the District Collector narrating the aforesaid allegations and requested the Collector to enquire into the matter. Subsequently after about three months, the present impugned memo dated 6.7.1999 came to be served on the petitioner. In the said Memo, it was indicated that an enquiry had been made by the Treasury Officer regarding the allegations made by the present petitioner and such allegations were found to be false and baseless and thereafter the present petitioner was "directed to explain within 10 days from the date of receipt of this memo as to why he has made false and baseless allegations against the Assistant Treasury Officer, Huzur Treasury, Trichy. If his explanation is not received within the stipulated time, it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be pursued as per rules".