A. BRAGATHEESWARI Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the dismissal order passed by the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority.

(2.) Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was selected as Steno-Typist by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 28.05.1990. While she was working as a Steno-Typist in the office of the Additional District Munsif, Karur, a memo dated 16.07.2008 was served to the petitioner based on the complaint sent by the Additional District Munsif, Karur, in which explanation was called for from the petitioner. The petitioner has not submitted her explanation within time and sought for extension of time for giving explanation. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended from service on 31.07.2008. Thereafter, a memo dated 04.08.2008 has been served to the petitioner calling upon her explanation regarding her misconduct. The petitioner sent her explanation on 13.08.2008 to the second respondent/Disciplinary Authority. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent had framed the following charges against the petitioner in the proceedings, dated 26.09.2008 in A.N0.252 of 2008:

(3.) The second respondent/Disciplinary Authority has appointed the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, as Enquiry Officer on 31.10.2008. The Enquiry Officer called for explanation for the above said charges along with necessary questionnaire form as per the Rules and the petitioner submitted her explanation along with questionnaire form. The petitioner has stated in the explanation and also informed to the Enquiry Officer that no oral or documentary evidence is required to be adduced and her statement alone may be accepted as her evidence.