PARAMESWARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 04. 07. 2002 made in O. A. No. 2420 1994 , the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: (a) THE petitioner was appointed as Rural Welfare Officer grade II on 01. 08. 1963 at Sengamangala m in Salem district. THEreafter, he was transferred and posted at Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District and to Radhapuram Block Development Office. On 11. 06. 1985, he was promoted as Assistant and posted at Valliyoor Panchayat Union. While so, on 12. 03. 1985 and on 05. 09. 1985, he received notices from the Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, directing him to refund the advance amount of Rs. 13 ,000 / -. THEreafter, on 29. 09. 1985, he was placed under suspension by the District Collector on the ground that an enquiry into grave charge was contemplated against him. On 16. 10. 1985, he submitted a representation denying the allegations leveled against him. In spite of his detailed representation, on 22. 11. 1985, the District Development officer, Cheranmadevi issued a charge memo by invoking Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, by framing three charges against him. He submitted an explanation detailing the entire facts. Meantime, his suspension was extended periodically and finally upto 30. 09. 1986 or till the final orders were passed in the Departmental proceedings initiated against him.(b ) Pursuant to the charge memo dated 22. 11. 1985, an enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Development officer on 14. 11. 1986. Without passing any order on the charge memo dated 22. 11. 1985, the third respondent issued another charge memo dated 09. 11. 1987, framing the same charges as found in the earlier charge memo dated 22. 11. 1985. He also submitted explanations for the second charge memo on 08. 06. 1988 and 06. 07. 1988, denying the charges contained therein. An enquiry was conducted with regard to second charge memo on 14. 11. 1986 and Enquiry Officer submitted his final report to the second respondent on 02. 11. 1988. Since the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance, he filed O. A. No. 5002 of 1993 before the tribunal for setting aside the order of suspension dated 29. 09. 1985. On 25. 10. 1993, direction was issued by the Tribunal for payment of subsistence allowance as per Rules. (c) While so, the second respondent, District Collector, Tirunelveli District, issued a fresh charge memo dated 05. 02. 1994, leveling the same set of charges, contained in the earlier charge memos dated 22. 11. 1985 and 09. 11. 1987, for which, he submitted his explanation on 01. 03. 1994, requesting the second respondent to drop the charges, as the same are belated and unwarranted. Without considering his explanation, a fresh enquiry Officer was appointed. (d) Questioning the third charge memo, the petitioner filed O. A. No. 2420 of 1994 before the Tribunal. THE main ground taken before the tribunal was that the subsequent charge memo (third charge memo) for the same set of facts and subject matter which were already put on enquiry by appointing enquiry Officers and the outcome of which enquiry was not disclosed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. He also challenged the charge memo on the ground of limitation. THE Government also passed order on 30. 12. 1994 , not allowing him to retire from service on the date of his superannuation i. e. , 31. 12. 1994 on the ground that enquiry against grave charges of criminal misconduct is pending against him. In the meantime, the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C. C. No. 25 of 1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor ended in acquittal on 06. 10. 1997 and the said order was also communicated to the respondents. In view of the same, according to the petitioner, there is no necessity for initiating any further departmental proceedings and the third charge memo is unwarranted and liable to be dropped. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 04. 07. 2002, dismissed his application and permitted the Department to proceed with the enquiry based on the third charge memo. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) NOW, let us see the third charge memo dated 05. 02. 1994, issued by the District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. The charges leveled therein are as follows. "charge No. 1: That he has failed to utilise the advance amount, Rice and Cement to a tune of rs. 61 ,293 /- as noted above in para 1 for the execution of the works entrusted to him under NREP/rlegp at Radhapuram Panchayat Union during 84-85. Charge No. 2: That he has failed to complete the above works by utilising the advanced paid to him. " For the said charges, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the Collector on 01. 03. 1994. He has not only questioned the charges on merits, but also highlighted that the said charge memo cannot be sustained on the ground of delay. Questioning the third charge memo, the petitioner has approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 2420 of 1994. In the meanwhile, the criminal case filed against him in C. C. No. 25 of 1995 on the file of Judicial magistrate, Valliyoor , ended in acquittal. A perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, which is available at pages 87 to 95 of the typedset of papers shows it is an honorable acquittal on merits.