V RATHINAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of the first respondent dated 23.8.2006 by which he was charge sheeted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Under the charge sheet given to the petitioner, in Annexure I three charges have been levelled against him. THE first charge is that when the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the District Employment Office, Villupuram during 1997-2000, he fraudulently collected amounts from various persons falsely stating that he will get them seats in the Teacher Training Institute. A list of persons, who were allegedly cheated by the petitioner, is given and the amount collected was a sum of Rs.4,77,000/-. It is also stated that one of those persons, who had paid money, had given a complaint before the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri District, for committing an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. He was also arrested on 26.02.2000 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Harur and kept in Sub-Jail, Harur, till 10.3.2000. It is further stated that the Judicial Magistrate, Harur, by his judgment dated 02.02.2005, held that since the petitioner had refunded the amounts to the persons from whom he had collected the same, there was no necessity to pursue the case against him. THErefore, it is charged that the petitioner has committed misconduct under Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Conduct Rules). In the Annexure 4 to the charge memo, a list of five witnesses has been given and in Annexure 3, apart from the judgment of the Criminal court, the agreements received from one Kubendiran and Madeswaran for having received the sum were also enclosed. This charge memo is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) WITH reference to the Criminal Case and the departmental enquiry initiated were based on the same set of facts, it is stated by the learned Government Advocate that while the criminal case related to the case of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C. and the petitioners acquittal was on the basis of the complainants withdrawing their complaints since they have received the amounts from the petitioner, the present disciplinary action is based upon Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules. Even without the Conduct Rules, it is needless to state that any Government servant should at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while in service. In this context, Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charge sheeted may be usefully extracted. "20. Integrity and Devotion Duty:- (1) Every member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service." Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner by collecting money from various persons and thereafter, refunding the same on a bond of agreement is wholly reprehensible and the authorities are entitled to proceed with their action and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. If the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, then he is liable for punishment under Rule 8 of the T.N.C.C.S. (D&A) Rules, 1973. Rule 8 of the said Rules begins as follows: