P GOVINDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is preferred by an unsuccessful applicant before the tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the prayer for quashing of a charge memo dated 12. 1. 2001, issued by the Collector, Cuddalore District, the third respondent in the O. A. as well as in the writ petition, and the letter dated 11. 5. 2001 issued by the State of Tamilnadu, represented by Secretary to government, Rural Development (E6) Department.

(2.) THE background of the case which compelled the writ petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is as follows: the writ petitioner joined the services as Junior Assistant as early as 14. 12. 1965 in the Directorate of Rural Development. By successive promotions, the writ petitioner occupied the post of a Block Development officer with effect from 24. 6. 1987. The petitioner's date of retirement fell on 31. 1. 2001. While so, the District Collector, Cuddalore, the third respondent in the writ petition, issued a charge memo dated 12. 1. 2001 under rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge memo, in Annexure-II, stated that during the period 5. 4. 1989 to 5. 3. 1990, while the petitioner was working as Block Development Officer, kurinjipadi Panchayat Union, under various developmental schemes, a sum of rs. 6,96,787/- was issued for the issue of rice, wheat, cement and payment to village Panchayat Presidents, to carry out improvement to the rural road, construction of community centre etc; that the relevant registers such as stock Register, Advance Recoverable Register, Measurement Book, Vouchers, Pay orders were not maintained and produced before the audit; that Certificate to the effect of payment of advance to Village Panchayat Presidents and rice, cement, wheat issued to the Village Panchayat Presidents were also not produced; and that out of the sanctioned amount of Rs. 6,96,787/-, rs. 5,11,249/- was not adjusted by the writ petitioner. In the circumstances, the entire expenditure of Rs. 5,11,249/- was objected to in the audit for the implementation of various programmes during 1989-90. It was alleged that for the loss suffered of Rs. 5,11,249/- to the Personal Deposit Account of panchayat Union, Kurinjipadi, the writ petitioner/applicant before the tribunal was fully responsible on the above-said charges. The writ petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation in the enquiry to be held, to the charges mentioned in the charge memo dated 12. 1. 2001 issued by the third respondent herein.

(3.) THE writ petitioner submitted his explanation dated 24. 1. 2001 denying the charges. It was further stated by the writ petitioner in his objection dated 24. 1. 2001 that he was working as an Additional Block development Officer, Kurinjipadi, for the period from 5. 4. 1989 to 5. 3. 1990. Thereafterwards, he was transferred from that Block; that he had maintained perfect records such as stock register, advance recoverable register, measurement book, vouchers and Pay Orders. The certificate evidencing payment to Village Panchayat Presidents and rice, cement and wheat issued to the village Panchayat Presidents were also available in the office and that those registers were not produced to audit by his successors. The writ petitioner also pointed out that in spite of the efforts taken by him to peruse the records, no records could be produced by gathering the particulars required. Thus, the writ petitioner denied the allegations on all five charges, offering explanations.