S SARASWATHI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE OF SIVAGANGAI SIVAGANGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the Central Nazir of the District Court, Sivagangai District, seeks for a certiorari to cal I for the records relating to the order of the first respondent, the District Judge of Sivagangai District, dated 30. 6. 2005 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, having joined duty in the Judicial Department as Copyist on 22. 11. 1968, she was promoted from time to time and she was now holding the post of Central Nazir, District Court, Sivagangai District. While she was working as Sherishtadar, Sub-Court, Devakottai, during the year 2003, a charge memo was issued alleging that she had misappropriated printing charges to the tune of Rs. 271 and that the same was not accounted for and remitted to Government. The Enquiry Officer/subordinate Judge, Devakottai, conducted an enquiry and after examining three witnesses on the department side and two wit nesses on the side of the delinquent, held in his report dated 10. 6. 2005, that the charge had not been proved against the petitioner. However, the first respondent/disciplinary authority, by order dated 30. 6. 2005 set aside the enquiry and directed a de-novo enquiry against the petitioner and one S. Sabapathy, the then Sheri Sherishtadar Assistant, against whom the charge of alleged defalcation has been proved. Against the said order the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition contending that the order of the disciplinary authority ordering de-novo enquiry is not sustainable.

(3.) MR. K. Chelladurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that when the disciplinary authority chooses to differ from the opinion of the enquiry officer, it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to furnish a proper show cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report. In this case, the petitioner was neither furnished with a copy of the enquiry report nor called upon to show cause against the proposed holding of de-novo enquiry. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of Principal Bench of this Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. P. Palanivelan, (2005) 3 C. T. C656