M GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Chennai dated 26. 11. 2001 made in O. A. No. 5906 of 1998, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as null, void, illegal and invalid and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse arrears of increment stopped pursuant to punishment order dated 15. 04. 1998 / 11. 05. 1998, apart from regulating the pay scale including all the increments together with paper promotion as Subregistrar Grade-I on par with his juniors with all attendant benefits giving weightage to his pensionary benefits, etc. ,

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he entered Government service as Section Writer on 07. 09. 1965 and after serving in the Registration department in various capacities, he retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation on 30. 11. 2001. The second respondent in his proceedings dated 21. 10. 1997, issued a charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short "the Rules"), alleging certain irregularities occurred in remittance of collection amount due to lack of supervision in the remittance duty. On receipt of the charge memo, he made a demand from the Sub-Registrar, Pallipalayam, requesting him to furnish certain documents, so as to enable him to submit an effective explanation. However, there was no response from him, and with the available materials, he submitted his explanation / objection on 26. 11. 1997. The second respondent in his proceedings dated 15. 04. 1998 / 11. 05. 1998, without conducting any enquiry and giving opportunity to defend, as contemplated under rule 17 (b) of the Rules, has straight-away issued an order of punishment stopping increment for three years without cumulative effect. Questioning the same, he filed O. A. No. 5906 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Chennai. By the impugned order dated 26. 11. 2001, the Tribunal, after finding that there is no procedural irregularity or illegality, dismissed his application; hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. A. Amalraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.