M KRISHNAPPA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 2788/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the punishment imposed on him by the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.7.97 and confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 9.12.97 and further confirmed by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 13.8.98 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32502 of 2005.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer, Pattaravalli Village, by the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No.1065/95/A dated 13.11.95, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner. For the said charges, an enquiry was conducted. Since all the charges were held proved, by the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.7.97, punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect was imposed and also the period of suspension was directed to be treated as punishment period. As against this, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent. But, the same was rejected by order dated 9.12.97 and the further appeal to the 3rd respondent was also rejected by order dated 13.8.98. As against that, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 4th respondent on 5.6.99. Since, no orders were passed on the said appeal by the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed the above O.A./W.P challenging the orders of respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) AS far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving sufficient time, the petitioner was compelled to offer his explanation to the Enquiry Officer is concerned, it has been specifically averred in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the Enquiry Officer's Report was served on the petitioner on 19.11.96, the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on 25.11.96 and appeared before the 1st respondent for personal hearing on 9.12.96. For this, no reply affidavit has been filed. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no sufficient time was given to the petitioner for submitting his reply to the Enquiry Officer's Report will not stand.