P.K. PERIASAMY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was formerly working as Joint Director of Handlooms and Textiles. He was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1998. While he was in service, the first respondent issued a charge memorandum to him in Letter No. 6371/E2/94 -16 dated 24.06.1997 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, levelling as many as five charges. The petitioner denied all the charges by promptly submitting an explanation. But before his due date of retirement, enquiry could not be completed. Therefore, his service beyond 30.04.1998 was extended and he was placed under suspension with effect from 30.04.1998. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer ultimately held that Charge No. 3 was not proved, however all the other charges were proved. Based on the above findings of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent issued G.O. (Ms) No. 151, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (E2) Department, dated 12.12.2011, imposing punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.

(3.) CHARGE No. 2 relates to the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,44,945.55 caused by the petitioner by purchasing chemicals and dyes between the period 10.10.1988 and 20.06.1991 from one Vanavil Dye Chem Agencies and others, without purchasing the same from the manufacturers. The crux of the charge is that the petitioner had purchased the dyes and other chemicals from the local dealers and thus these materials had not been purchased on the market value, as fixed by the manufacturers. The petitioner has denied this allegation. According to him, he purchased the dyes only by following the instructions of the Government, from the local dealers of the manufacturers. Therefore, according to him, it is not illegal. In my considered opinion, the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. The Enquiry Officer, having considered the instructions given by the Department and the prevailing cost of these materials during the relevant time, has held that this charge has been proved. It has been accepted by the Government also. This Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal so as to substitute its findings in the place of findings of the Enquiry Officer by re -appreciating the entire evidence. That course is not at all possible in the Writ Court. Unless it is shown prima facie that the findings of the Enquiry Officer which came to be accepted by the Government is perverse in as much as it is based on no evidence, it is not possible for this Court to examine the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Here in this case, applying such stand if we look into the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the impugned Government Order, it would go to show that they have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had violated the guidelines of the Department, to purchase dyes and other chemicals from the manufacturers. Admittedly, he has purchased it not from the manufacturers, but from the local dealers. Thus, I have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer which was accepted by the Government holding that the petitioner is guilty of this charge.