SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. S NITHIYANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Singaravelan learned counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed by the Government against the order of the Tribunal directing that the Charge Memo issued on the first respondent be issued under Rule 17 (a) instead of under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, (hereinafter called the Rules ).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention is to the effect that the Original Application No. 3647 of 2003 filed by the respondent No. 1 on 06. 11. 2003 was finally disposed of on the very next day i. e 07. 11. 2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to the Government. Even though Prima facie, such a contention is attractive, we are unable to accept such contention on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We find from the impugned order that the present petitioner was represented by Government counsel. It does not appear that the Government counsel had prayed for adjournment for filing any counter. No specific ground has been taken in the affidavit indicating that the Counsel wanted an opportunity for filing counter. In the absence of such specific assertion, we are not able to accept the first submission.

(3.) MOREOVER if such submission is accepted we would remit back the matter to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has become non-functional on account of the retirement of the Vice-Chairman and therefore, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length on all aspects relating to merit and therefore it is unnecessary to delve deep into the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.