V. VEERAMANI Vs. THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No. 6514 of 2009 dated 19.4.2012 insofar as reducing the punishment to stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect, by modifying the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect, imposed by the second respondent by order dated 13.3.2006.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that while the appellant was working as Co-Operative Sub-Registrar/Field Officer in Cheranmahadevi, in Palayamkottai Taluk from 13.9.1996 to 30.9.1999, allegations were made against the appellant and on reference to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings a charge memo was issued in TDP No. 6 of 2002 on 28.8.2002 alleging that with corruptive motive and in abuse of official position, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/- each from one A. Subbiah, Executive Committee Member of the Society for sanctioning Housing Loan and accepted Rs.7,000/- on behalf of 14 beneficiaries. The second charge alleged was that the appellant demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/- from the said A.Subbiah. The third charge was that the appellant sanctioned Housing Loan for 12 ineligible persons violating the norms laid down in the bye-laws. The appellant denied all the charges by submitting explanation. The said explanation having been found not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted holding that charges 1 and 2 were not proved and charge No. 3 alone was proved. Based on the said finding of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect by order dated 13.3.2006. The said punishment was confirmed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority and the said orders were challenged before the learned single Judge.

(3.) The learned single Judge gave a finding that charges 1 and 2 having been not proved with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe and the appellant being not the Loan Sanctioning Authority, which is the duty of the Board of Management of the Society, merely because the appellant had recommended certain ineligible names for sanction of loan, it cannot be termed that it was a deliberate attempt made by the appellant with an intention of making unlawful gain. Therefore, the learned single Judge treated the punishment as disproportionate to the gravity of allegation and modified the punishment as that of stoppage of increment for five years without cumulative effect.