I JOSEPH LOURDHUNATHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in G. O. 2 (D) No. 55 Home (SC) Department dated 16. 02. 2005 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the Fire and Rescue Services Department as Station Fire Officer on 09. 04. 1979, after 25 years of service, he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Officer on 01. 09. 1995. In the meanwhile, on 07. 06. 1993, when the petitioner was serving as Station Fire Officer in Tirupur, M/s. Best Cotton Mills (P) Ltd, Dharapuram met with a fire accident. On 10. 06. 1993, one Namashivayam, Deputy Director, Fire and Rescue Service Department, Western Range, Coimbatore inspected the place of accident and the petitioner also accompanied him since the station fire officer, Dharapuram was on casual leave between 09. 06. 1993 and 11. 06. 1993. On hearing the visit of Deputy Director Namashivayam, the Station Fire Officer, Dharapuram cancelled his leave and he also visited the said place of occurrence. The petitioner reached the mill at 11. 00 am and the deputy director entered the mill at 1. 30 p. m. After completing the inspection, the Deputy Director left the mill at 2. 00 p. m. At 2. 30 p. m. , the station fire officer, Dharapuram also left the mill, however, the petitioner, under the instructions of the deputy director allegedly remained in the mill to assess the loss and the safety measures provided in the mill. After assessing the loss, the petitioner allegedly left the mill at 3. 55 p. m. and returned to Tiruppur. On 28. 06. 1993, the Managing Director of the said M/s. Best Cotton Mills (P) Ltd, Dharapuram preferred a complaint to the Secretary, Home Department, Chennai alleging that on 10. 06. 1993 at 12. 40 pm the deputy director Namashivayam and the petitioner visited the mill, inspected the affected areas as well as the machineries and told the staff of the mill that their report would be issued, which are required for claiming compensation, only after payment of Rs. 30000/- as illegal gratification, which was stated to have been protested by one of the staff Gnanaraj, however, after negotiations, the said amount was reduced to Rs. 12,000/- which was also paid later to deputy director Namashivayam. Pursuant to the said complaint, a charge memo dated 26. 08. 1997 was issued containing two charges and they are:-

(3.) ON receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the case was sent to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and it was taken on file by it as TDP No. 1 of 1997. Before the Tribunal, the respondents/department has examined 9 witnesses namely Pws 1 to 9 and marked Exs. P1 to P11. On the side of the petitioner, Dws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. D Ex. 1 to 9 were marked. The Tribunal, after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence found that the charges are proved against the petitioner and the said Namashivayam and submitted its report on 30. 06. 2000 for which the petitioner also submitted his explanation dated 25. 09. 2000. Based on the said report, the first respondent issued G. O. 2 (D) No. 55 dated 16. 02. 2005 imposing the punishment of reduction in rank by one stage for a period of two years to the petitioner, which is challenged in this writ petition.