C JEYARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of dismissal from service imposed under the impugned order G. O. (D)Home No. 1072 CTSI-A dated 23. 12. 1999, passed by the first respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner who initially joined under the Tamil nadu Electricity Board as a clerk, subsequently joined Judicial service on 25. 7. 1980 as a Judicial Magistrate. On 10. 12. 1996, the petitioner was suspended from services in contemplation of departmental proceedings. On 17. 12. 1996, the first set of charge-sheet consisting of 8 charges was issued. However, since the petitioner was attaining the normal age of superannuation, i. e. , 58, on 31. 12. 1996, he was not allowed to retire and the departmental proceedings continued. Subsequently, on 5. 12. 1997, a second set of charge-sheet consisting of 5 charges was issued, primarily based on the explanation furnished by the petitioner on 28. 10. 1996. Out of 8 charges included in the first set of charge-sheet, the enquiry officer found that Charge Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 had been proved. Similarly, out of 5 charges in the second charge-sheet, the enquiry officer found that Charge Nos. 1 and 3 had-been proved. Ultimately, on the basis of the enquiry report after calling for further explanation from the delinquent and on the basis of the recommendation made by the High Court, the order of dismissal has been passed. Such order is being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was placed under suspension. Even though he reached the age of superannuation on 3 1. 12. 1996, he was not allowed to superannuate and the departmental proceeding which had been initiated on 17. 12. 1996 was continued beyond 31. 12. 1996 and subsequently a second charge memo was issued on 5. 12. 1997. It is also not disputed that the order of dismissal was passed on 23. 12. 1999 and subsistence allowance was paid only after such order of dismissal was passed.