K KARTHIKEYAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,; INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE AND; JOINT DIRECTOR (MATCHES)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has filed Original Application No. 1384 of 1993 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, challenging the order of the second respondent dated 16.12.1992 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 14133 of 2006.

(2.) By a charge memo dated 16.05.1990, charges on four counts have been levelled against the petitioner for which oral enquiry was conducted and out of the four charges, allegations levelled in charges 1 and 2 were not proved and charges 3 and 4 were proved. For the proved allegations, the minor punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect was imposed by order dated 16.12.1992. Challenging the same, the above said original application has been filed.

(3.) As far as charge No.3 is concerned, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that he had sold the goods without the bills and retained the amount with himself. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the bill was raised only subsequent to 22.12.1989 and hence the question of misappropriation does not arise. This argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that without issuing the bills, he had permitted the movement of the goods from the Society and thereby retained the amount himself. Unless the petitioner proves that only after issuing the bills alone the goods were moved and without bills no goods were delivered, when the petitioner fails to prove this, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.