S MURUGAVEL Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 40767/97/a5, dated 17. 09. 2004, of the Personal Assistant (General) to collector, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein and the consequential proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 73320/2004/a5, dated 24. 01. 2005, of the District Revenue Officer, coimbatore, the first respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service with all attendant and consequential benefits.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

(3.) IT is further stated that the enquiry report, dated 22. 01. 2001, was communicated to the petitioner and he had submitted a representation, on 02. 05. 2001, stating that since the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges were not proved, the petitioner had requested that the charges may be dropped. However, the Personal Assistant (General) of the District collector, Coimbatore , the second respondent herein, not being satisfied with the findings of the said enquiry Officer, had appointed the Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, as the new enquiry Officer to proceed further with the enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry officer denying the charges. However, no enquiry proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the second respondent himself had directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 21. 06. 2004. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent and denied all the charges. However, the second respondent had held that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and he had further held that the charges were proved based on his findings. Hence, the second respondent herein had imposed on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect , vide his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 40767/97/a5, dated 17. 09. 2004. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District, the first respondent herein, on 06. 12. 2004. The first respondent had issued a notice, dated 27. 12. 2004, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 07. 01. 2005. Inspite of the petitioner submitting his explanation and pleading that he was not involved in the illegal activities alleged against him, the first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 24. 01. 2005, held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved and that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities violating the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, and therefore, he was punishable for the charges, as found under Rule 17 (b) of the T. N. C. S (D&a) Rules and therefore, it was decided to impose the punishment of "compulsory Retirement" from service with effect from 31. 01. 2 005. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 17. 09. 2004, and the consequential order of the first respondent, dated 24. 01. 2005.