G DURAIRAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 25. 1. 1995 and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire on superannuation on the afternoon of 30. 6. 1992.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Registration Department in 1953 and he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1969 and further promoted as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II in the year 1977 and again promoted as Sub-Registrar, Grade-I in the year 1984. Petitioner while working as Sub-Registrar, Tiruthangal, he was trapped on the ground that he received Rs. 20 as bribe. Even though no amount was recovered from his person, a Rs. 10 note was found in the cash box containing legitimate collection of fees for the day in a tainted condition. Petitioenr was arrested and enlarged on bail. A charge sheet was issued by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding in DE. 162/88 dated 1. 12. 1989. On the same day, another charge was also framed. A fresh charge memo contained two charges. The first charge relates to trapping, i. e. , receipt of Rs. 20 as bribe. The second charge is that the petitioner actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position, while working as Sub-Registrar, Tiruthangal, had committed gross misconduct and misdemeanour and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty by demanding and receiving illegal gratification. The additional charge framed was that while the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, Tiruthangal, he along with another Assistant and Junior Assistant in the same office, conniving with each other on 23. 9. 1987 demanded and received illegal gratification of a total sum of Rs. 150/- from several persons named and failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found only one charge in the first charge memo as proved and found the other charges as not proved. Based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, in respect of the Charge No. 1, that is, receipt of tainted money of Rs. 20/-, the Inspector General of Registration removed the petitioner from service on the date of his superannuation. Petitioner filed appeal against the said order before the respondent herein, which was also rejected in G. O. (2d)No. 2 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 25. 1. 1995 and the said order is challenged in the above original application, which is now transferred and numbered as the above writ petition.

(3.) THE main ground of attack made in the writ petition is that the appellate authority has not followed Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.