NEELAVATHY Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that she joined as Children Welfare Organizer, with effect from 15.12.1972 under the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner passed S.S.L.C., and promoted as Rural Welfare Officer. On 03.09.2003, the first respondent issued a charge memo stating that SSLC certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be bogus. Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation. The petitioner, on 23.09.2003, submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was orally prevented from attending the duty. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3579 of 2003, which was disposed of, on 03.11.2003, directing the respondents to take action either permitting the petitioner to work in the office or place her under suspension.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner was asked to appear, on 15.12.2003, before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner sought for copy of the communication forwarded by the fourth respondent to the first respondent. However, the copy of the document sought for by the petitioner was not furnished. The petitioner, reserving her rights, appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted her explanation. In the meantime, by a communication, dated 17.03.2004, the second respondent directed the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why she approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner also offered her explanation for the same. However, by proceedings, dated 12.02.2007, the petitioner was suspended from service.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for copies of certain documents, which were not furnished to her, and hence, non -supply of documents to the delinquent would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent and the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth her case effectively. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, makes reliance upon the following Judgments: -