T.PADMANABHAN Vs. THE SPECIALCOMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service as Section Writer in the Survey Department on 03.12.1984 under the control of the Assistant Director, Survey and Settlement. He was absorbed as Surveyor on consolidated basis on 27.10.1989. His service was regularized on 22.08.1997 in the cadre of the Junior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant on 30.06.2003 and has been serving in the respondent Department without any remarks. The petitioner is serving in the office of the Director of Survey and Settlement. During the year 2001, the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Special Commissioner of Survey and Settlement. The Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple, Palladam previously owned vast extent of land. The Village was taken over under the Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and parties were granted pattas after conducting an enquiry. The Settlement Tahsildar in his proceedings SR No. 664/68, dated 21.08.1968 granted patta for an extent of 5.57 acres and 4.62 acres comprised in S.No. 232/1 and 234/1 in favour of Venkatachala Gounder and others under Section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963. The Tahsildar has granted patta to an extent of 28 acres 40 cents comprised in S.Nos. 232/2 and 234/2 in favour of Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple located at Parameswarampalayam, represented by its Poojari, Subramania Gurukal. The above said order has become final as early as in the year 1968. But subsequently Palaniswamy and 12 others filed C.M.A.No. 30 of 2000 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore challenging the said order dated 21.08.1968 on the ground that the Settlement Tahsildar did not consider the claims of the appellant in respect of Survey No. 232/2 and 234/2 and prayed for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner who was serving as a Junior Assistant in the respondent office has not sent any communication addressing any authority with reference to that case.

(2.) THE petitioner has submitted that the Inam Abolition Tribunal held that no opportunity was given to the appellants to put -forth their contention before the Settlement Enquiry and by an order dated 18.11.2002, the Tribunal was pleased to set -aside the order dated 21.08.1968 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai -5 who was holding the post of Settlement Tahsildar due to the abolition post issued notice to the parties, conducted an enquiry and granted patta in favour of Rasappa Gounder and 20 others in Survey Nos. 232/2 and 234/2. In the enquiry, on the side of the claimant, one Rasappa Gounder was examined and on the side of the temple, the Trustee, the Village Administrative Officer, Nallur and the Tahsildar, Tiruppur was examined and the objection raised by the temple was negatived and the claimants were directed to pay the land assessment tax (20 times) and grant of patta for their possession and enjoyment under Section 11 Sub -Section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963 was ordered.

(3.) THE petitioner further submits that he was served with an additional charge memo on 03.09.2003 containing 2 more charges. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for the charges issued to him immediately thereafter. An enquiry was conducted by the P.A. to the Director of Survey and Land Records Department and the enquiry officer held that all the 8 charges framed against him have not been proved and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Department instead of dropping the charges against the petitioner had issued another charge memo modifying the earlier charge memo from 17(b) to 17(a) by an order dated 03.06.2004 and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation for the charges. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for the charge memo issued to him under Rule 17(1) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. Now again, after an enquiry was conducted and after a finding has been recorded holding that the charges have not been proved, the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo again under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS Rules by the respondent in Na.Ka.No. A1/4514/03, dated 28.07.2004 for the same set of allegations and he has been directed to submit the explanation.