DR. B. MANIVANNAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Veterinary System Surgeon and his appointment was through Employment Exchange under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (in short "the Rules"). At the time of appointment, the petitioner was directed to submit a proforma duly filled by the petitioner. The proforma did not contain any column required to be given by the candidates with regard to the pendency of the criminal case. 1.1. The second respondent issued a charge memo dated 25.09.2014 alleging that the petitioner suppressed the pendency of the Criminal Case to the Department. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that he was not directed to give any particulars regarding the pendency of the Criminal Case. The summons were issued in the Criminal Case only during the month of May 2014. The petitioner also explained that there was no column in the proforma enabling him to submit the details regarding the pendency of the Criminal Case. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge is proved. Thus, the petitioner was terminated from service on 03.06.2016.

(2.) Rule 18 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, (in short "the 1955 Rules") casts a duty on the Disciplinary Authority to give independent reasons and in the absence of the same, the order of punishment is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) The fact that the petitioner was in custody from 23.01.2010 to 11.02.2010 for a period of 20 days in connection with Crime No.5 of 2010 in C.C.No.110 of 2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 477 IPC, for the alleged misappropriation of money to the extent of Rs.56 lakhs, while he was working in Kalanjium Tholilagam, is not under dispute.