PALANIAPPAN R M Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the Transport commissioner in R. No. 29298. /v4/91 (E. O. No. 294 of 2000) dated June 6, 2000 and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, chennai, passed in O. A. No. 4144 of 2002 dated June 27, 2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of ceritiorari.

(2.) THE case of the delinquent/petitioner is as follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed on november 15, 1983 as Motor Vehicles inspector Grade II in the Transport department through the Tamil Nadu Public service Commission. The petitioner was served with a charge memo, dated november 22, 1995 by the first respondent alleging that while the petitioner was working as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade ii Saidapet at Meenambakkam Unit Office, he abused his official position to get bribe. The said charge has been framed against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu civil Services Rules (Danda) Rules. In the charge memo, three charges were framed and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his explanation on August 1, 1996. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved, Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on february 21, 2000 by the Deputy Transport commissioner asking the petitioner to submit his further representation, if any. On march 31, 2000, the first respondent furnished a copy of the additional report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner and also asked him to submit further representation, if any. The second respondent also sent a letter to the petitioner in Lr. No. Confdl. 22/97 dated March 11, 2000. The petitioner filed his explanations dated April 12, 2000 and April 24, 2000. As the Transport commissioner did not (sic) satisfy with the explanation offered by the petitioner, on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he passed an order dated June 6, 2000 dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) AS against the order passed by the transport Commissioner dated June 6, 2000, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for quashing the same.