N PADMAVATHI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner's husband and the father of the 2nd petitioner viz., Late Chandran entered the service as Village Administrative Officer in the year 1984.

(2.) The first petitioner's husband viz., Chandran was proceeded with departmentally under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules by the District Collector, Nilgiris District by issuing charge memo on 29.03.2000. The allegation made in the charge memo is that the first petitioner's husband Chandran issued bogus certificate and based on the said certificate, certain benefits were claimed by some persons and the same resulted in loss of Rs.22,500/- to the Government. It is relevant to note that 9 other Village Administrative Officers like Chandran were also issued with similar charge memos during that time.

(3.) All those Village Administrative Officers including S.Chandran remitted 50% of the amount of loss and a direction was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer that on such remittance, charges would be dropped. The Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority. Hence, though amounts were remitted, disciplinary proceedings continued. In fact, it seems that a direction was issued by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration vide proceedings dated 08.09.1997 to remit 50% of the loss caused to the Government and the same found place in the impugned order. But the aforesaid order dated 08.09.1997 does not state that the disciplinary proceedings would be dropped. But the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a letter dated 10.01.2001 directing the Village Administrative Officers, who were facing the charges to remit 50% of the loss caused to the Government and on such remittance, charges would be dropped.