D GNANASEKAR Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is challenging the order of the fourth respondent-Tribunal, passed in O. A. No. 8117 of 2000, dated 23. 9. 2003. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the correctness of G. O. (1-D ). No. 357, rural Development Department, dated 19. 7. 2000, wherein the petitioner was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for three years without cumulative effect.

(2.) IN the year 1987, the petitioner was working as Assistant accountant in Thurichapuram Panchayat Union and he was assigned the job of accountant in the Scheme for implementation of National Rural Employment programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme funded by the central Government and executed by the Panchayat Union. The said Scheme was for the benefit of landless labourers. A Manager was allotted to look after the execution of the project and the petitioner herein was the Accountant in-charge of the stock of foodgrains to be disbursed under the Scheme. Under the Scheme, certain quantity of cash besides stock of wheat and rice was allotted to the Panchayat Union. The foodgrains were stored in the Panchayat union godown to be disbursed as wages to the landless labourers for the implementation of the Scheme. At the relevant point of time, one venkasubramanian was the Manager of the project. In December 1987, the said venkatasubramanian was on leave and the petitioner, who was incharge, received a quantity of 26. 680 metric tons of rice from the Food Corporation of India godown on 1. 12. 1987. The said foodgrains were stored in a private godown by the petitioner and issued the same to the various Panchayats in execution of the abovesaid Scheme. It was noticed by the audit department in the year 1989 that there was a shortfall in the total quantity of the foodgrains to an extent of 26. 680 metric tons, which was taken delivery by the petitioner. Based on the audit report, the District Development Officer conducted an enquiry and the statements were recorded from all persons concerned. In course of these proceedings, it was found that the petitioner was responsible for receipt and issue of the stock of foodgrains during the relevant time. However, as per the rules and instructions, the Manager of the Panchayat Union was also liable for the loss of stock. On 15. 9. 1990, the Divisional development Officer, Thiruvannamalai, by his proceedings Na. Ka. A. 1. 12 975/1989, fixed the over all responsibility on the Manager and determined the loss caused due to the shortage of foodgrains at Rs. 53 ,138/- and directed that the same should be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the Manager who had since retired. The appeal preferred by the Manager was rejected by the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, on 19. 11. 1990. The Manager venkatasubramanian, aggrieved by the order of recovery of the abovesaid sum of rs. 53,138/-, filed O. A. No. 3 566 of 1990 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal and during the pendency of the abovesaid Original Application, it is stated that the said Manager expired. The Tribunal however quashed the recovery order of the Divisional Development Officer on the ground that it was violative of Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and there was also an observation by the Tribunal that the receipt of 26. 680 metric tons of rice on 1. 12. 1987 has not been entered in the Stock Register when the Manager was not on duty. Therefore, it was for the authorities to probe into the matter. Based on the said order of the Tribunal, it appears that the further clarification and enquiry resulted in the unfolding of the involvement of the petitioner and other persons in the delinquency. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 28. 12. 1991, the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, issued a charge memo to the petitioner and Lakshmikanthan under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu government Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for the aforesaid loss of foodgrains which occurred during the period when the petitioner was in-charge as Accountant under the aforesaid Scheme. The allegations pertain to the period 1987 when the petitioner was working as Accountant in-charge of the food stock received by the Union. On 14. 1. 1992, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. A District Town Panchayat Officer was appointed as enquiry officer who gave his report on 10. 2. 1992. In the meanwhile, by his proceedings dated 11. 11. 1993, the Collector of the District concerned passed an order holding that due to the irregularities that happened during the period 30. 11. 1987 when the stock of 26. 680 metric tons of rice was taken delivery from the Food Corporation of India by the concerned Panchayat union, there occurred a loss to the tune of Rs. 53,138/- to the Government. In the said order, it is stated that as far as the charge memo was concerned, the papers were sent to the Director of Rural Development for passing final orders. It is stated by the Collector in the order dated 11. 11. 1993 that based on the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development, a sum of rs. 13,284. 50 equivalent to 25 % of the total amount of Rs. 53,138/-, was directed to be recovered from the petitioner for the loss caused to the government. Similar orders of recovery were made on S. Venkatasubramanian, r. Lakshmikanthan and Basheer Ahamed. The said sum was directed to be recovered by 13 monthly instalments from the salary of the petitioner and remitted to the concerned Panchayat Union. According to the petitioner, the order dated 11. 11. 1993, wherein recovery of money was ordered, is the order of punishment on the charge memo dated 28. 12. 1991. However, on 2. 12. 1998 , a show cause notice was issued by the Government enclosing the findings of the enquiry officer. On 13. 1. 1999, the petitioner gave his representation stating that the disciplinary proceedings have already ended on 11. 11. 1993 by the order of the District Collector, directing the recovery of a sum of rs. 13,284. 50 and prayed for dropping all the charges. However, by the proceedings in G. O. (1-D ). No. 357, dated 19. 7. 2 000, which is the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Government took into consideration the various charges found proved by the enquiry officer and passed an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect. As against this order, O. A. No. 8117 of 2000 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while admitting the application, granted stay of the order of punishment dated 19. 7. 2000. It is also stated that by order dated 29. 1. 2001, the petitioner was promoted as Extension Officer temporarily pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 21 of 199 8, dated 30. 6. 2000. However, by the subsequent order dated 23. 9. 2003, the Tribunal dismissed O. A. No. 8117 of 2000, which is the subject matter of the writ petition.

(3.) THE main contentions of the writ petitioner are as follows: (i) The disciplinary proceedings culminated by order dated 11. 11. 199 3 passed by the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, wherein, an order for recovery of the loss was made and this should be construed as the punishment under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules. (ii) There has been inordinate delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as the charge memo was issued on 28. 12. 1991 and the enquiry was conducted on 10. 2. 1992 and the order imposing the punishment was passed on 19. 7. 2000. The delay in passing the order of punishment vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings. (iii) There is no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, since the district Collector in his earlier proceedings held that the Manager alone is responsible for the entire loss and the Manager having died on 19. 11. 1991, the proceedings were started afresh against the petitioner and therefore, the entire exercise is unjust and improper.