K.MOHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.K.Mohan, who was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 1.1.71, became Assistant and finally promoted as Sub Registrar, suffered a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. After receiving the charge memo dated 3.6.2004 containing seven charges for committing certain lapses, the petitioner gave his reply on 18.6.2004 denying all the charges. But the fourth respondent, not satisfied with the explanation, found him guilty in respect of all the charges and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years without cumulative effect by an order dated 22.6.2004. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.6.2004. Finally the third respondent/appellate authority, finding that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory, confirmed the order of the fourth respondent/disciplinary authority for the proven charges by his order dated 10.11.2004. However, since the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.6.2004, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years could not be implemented. Therefore, by the proceedings dated 22.6.2014, an order of recovery was passed by the fourth respondent to recover the monetary amount of three years increment in one lumpsum from the petitioner and accordingly, he also remitted a sum of Rs.7,200/ -. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the first respondent/Government. After going through the facts of the case, the first respondent concluded that the recovery of the monetary amount of three years increment was an error and accordingly quashed the order dated 22.6.2014 by the G.O.(2D) No.33, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 13.3.2007 with a further direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. In the light of the above, the third respondent framed the charges under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules against the petitioner in charge memo No.4586/R2/2005 -1 dated 26.3.2007 and thereafter the petitioner was directed to give his explanation to the enquiry officer. After concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 16.11.2009 holding that in respect of the lapses for the audit period 5/2003 pertaining to document Nos.1220/2003 & 1221/2003 covered under the first charge stood proved; in respect of the lapse for the audit period 4/2003 pertaining to document No.872/2003 covered under the fourth charge stood proved; in respect of the lapses for the audit period 2/2003, 3/2003 pertaining to document Nos.455/2003, 518/2003 & 1362/2003 covered under the second charge stood proved; in respect of the lapse for the audit period 4/2003 pertaining to document No.101/2003 covered under the fifth charge stood proved; in respect of the lapses for the audit period 5/2003 pertaining to registration of marriages in Nos.25/2003 & 26/2003 covered under the sixth charge stood proved and in respect of the lapses for the audit period 5/2003 pertaining to registration of marriages in Nos.182/2003 & 200/2003 covered under the seventh charge stood proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the first respondent by G.O.(2D) No.116, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 22.8.2013 has imposed the punishment of reduction of Rs.1,000/ - from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules without application of mind, since the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. He also submitted that the punishment of reduction of Rs.1,000/ - from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of one year is excessive and therefore the same is liable to be interfered with.

(3.) In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the opinion given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to proceed against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in tune with the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules have been duly complied with by the respondents, as he was granted sufficient opportunity. Adding further, he submitted that when the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the enquiry officer, after conducting enquiry, has submitted his report to the third respondent holding the lapses committed by the petitioner as proved. Since the third respondent has no authority to pass orders on the disciplinary proceeding, as the petitioner retired from service, he forwarded the report to the first respondent to pass final orders on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The first respondent, accepting the report of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges covered under charge Nos.1,2,4,5,6 & 7, imposed the punishment of reduction of Rs.1,000/ - from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of one year. Therefore, he pleaded that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.