G. RANGANATHAN Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order of dismissal from services for the proven misconduct.

(2.) MR . L. Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner complaining that the quantum of punishment inflicted against the petitioner for a minor lapse committed by the petitioner, requested this court for a re -look on the quantum of punishment. After reading through the charges found in the charge memo dated 04.05.2004, he has also taken me to the explanation dated 24.05.2004 filed by the petitioner and therefore he admitted to justify that the petitioner having suffered an accident, was unable to properly calculate the accounts during the relevant point in time. However, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 17.02.2003 by the proceedings passed by the 3rd respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantakam in R.C. No. 796/2003/B while he was working as a Village Administrative Officer at Kalkulam Village. The petitioner immediately challenged the order of suspension before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai in O.A. No. 813 of 2003. But subsequently the said O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2004 and after that, charge memo dated 04.05.2004 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to give his explanation to the charges within 15 days. Thereafter, on 25.05.2004, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the 3rd respondent denying all the charges, more particularly the charge of misappropriation of Government money for a sum of Rs. 14,208/ -. The petitioner also had deposited the shortage amount for a sum of Rs. 14,208/ - in the treasury in instalments, viz., on 18.06.2003 a sum of Rs. 9,701/ -, Rs. 2000/ - on 19.06.2003 and a sum of Rs. 2501/ - on 09.06.2004, totalling to Rs. 14,208/ -. That apart, he has also explained in detail that he met with an accident and suffered fracture in his left hand and in view of that there was some disturbance in his concentration and as a result, he has misclassified the accounts instead of showing the amount collected as land revenue under CSMB head. Therefore, he requested the 3rd respondent not to proceed with the charges as the allegation will not amount to falsification of accounts. Moreover, the petitioner had to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.05.2004, hence, he has requested the respondents to drop the proceedings by accepting his explanation. But the respondent did not allow the petitioner to retire from service and he was retained in service until enquiry was completed. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent, by notice dated 16.06.2004 asked the petitioner to appear before him for personal enquiry on 13.10.2004 Accordingly, he appeared before the 3rd respondent on 21.10.2004. Finally, the enquiry officer, on completion of the enquiry submitted a detailed report on 26.10.2004 to the 3rd respondent holding him guilty of the charges recommending to take further action against him.

(3.) THE learned counsel again explained before this court that the petitioner has misclassified the accounts only under C.S.W.B head, instead of showing the amount of Rs. 14,208/ - collected as land revenue, hence it can never be construed as misappropriation. Opposing the prayer, learned Special Govt. Pleader submitted that as contended by the petitioner, if he has misclassified the accounts under C.S.W.B. Head, the same would have been reflected under that head but he has not deposited this amount even under C.S.W.B. Head, hence the amount is construed to be a misappropriation. This court is impressed with the explanation offered by the respondent in the impugned order. Moreover, the reasonings given in the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by the 1st and 2nd respondent vividly show that the petitioner, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer at Kalkulam Village, after collecting the land revenue of Rs. 14,208/ - has not properly and punctually deposited the same under CSMB head. In fact as per the explanation of the petitioner, the said amount was not properly classified under the land revenue, he should have paid the amount under some category; but the case of the Department shows that the question of misclassification does not arise for the reason that the petitioner has not even deposited the amount under any head, therefore this court agrees with the finding given by the respondents that having collected the land revenue, the petitioner, as a Village Administrative Officer has not deposited the amount in any treasury or under any head. Therefore, his explanation and the defence taken that the error occurred only due to misclassification of the account instead of showing the amount collected as land revenue is absolutely unacceptable. If the petitioner, in all fairness, takes the defence of misclassification, then he would have deposited the amount under any head and there could not have been any loss to the Department; but in the present case, only after he was placed under suspension on 17.02.2003, he has started depositing gradually a sum of Rs. 9,701/ - on 18.06.2003, Rs. 2000/ - on 19.06.2003 and a sum of Rs. 2501/ - on 09.06.2004, totalling to Rs. 14,208/ -. When this court is unable to see any merits on the explanation or defence of the petitioner to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents, this court is of the view that all the impugned orders are perfectly in order. Therefore, the writ petition fails and hence the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.