S KANNAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, UTHAMAPALAYAM; DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, THENI; SUB TREASURY OFFICER, UTHAMAPALAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the charge memo, dated 21.03.2012 and the consequential order, dated 30.03.2012, permitting the petitioner to retire from service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings pending against him and for a direction to the respondents to sanction and release the following benefits: (i) Pension; (ii) Commuted value of pension, to the petitioner within a stipulated time.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined in Government Service as Village Administrative Officer, on 22.05.1984. During his tenure as District Secretary, he ventilated the grievance of the members to the first respondent and dharna was also staged against the first respondent. In order to wreak vengeance against him, the first respondent instigated one Arun Kumar to make a false complaint against him alleging that he accumulated immovable properties, without getting permission from the authorities concerned. Based on the said complaint, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 21.03.2012. Subsequent to the issuance of charge memo, the order, dated 30.03.2012, was also issued, permitting him to retire from service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings pending against him. Challenging the charge memo as well as the subsequent order, dated 30.03.2012, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the the charges have been framed, without application of mind and without looking into the service register. The learned counsel, assailing the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 31.03.2012, contended that unless the services of the petitioner are retained, there cannot be any further disciplinary proceedings under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the entries in the Service Register to prove that all the properties in his name and in the name of his wife have been entered. With regard to properties in Serial Nos.9 and 10 and the vehicles, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner has got nothing to do with those immovable and movable properties and because of the unsustainable charge memo, the petitioner is unable to receive the terminal benefits, and therefore, sought for quashing of the charge memo and the consequential proceedings conditionally permitting him to retire from service.