G JOTHIVELU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 16.02.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.5600 of 2007 whereby and where under, the order of removal from service of the appellant/petitioner passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, the third respondent herein, has been confirmed.

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to this writ appeal are detailed as under: a. THE appellant/petitioner worked as a Village Administrative Officer in Mangalapuram Village (which is his native village), Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District from 15.09.2004 and his father had owned certain extent of lands in that village and had also constructed a temple in those lands which were wrongly classified as Government poromboke lands. Based on a representation from his father, a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Tahsildar who had recommended issue of patta to his father and cancellation of patta issued favouring the intruders. In pursuance of the settlement made by his father, the District Revenue Officer, the second respondent, ordered issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner based on which the Tahsildar, the fourth respondent had issued patta Nos.14 and 843. Based on these, the appellant/petitioner had also paid land tax and he himself being the Village Administrative Officer, had made entry recording the collection of land tax for his own lands. While so, the appellant/petitioner was suspended from service on 29.04.2005 alleging that he had tampered with the Government records and his representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer to set aside his suspension order bore no fruit. b. Meanwhile, since his lands were utilised by the Block Development Officer for public purpose, a writ petition in W.P.No.30142 of 2005 came to be filed by the appellant/petitioner in which he got a favourable order of interim injunction and his order of suspension also was revoked subject to continuation of departmental proceedings. As the Block Development Officer started constructing a public toilet on the petitioner's land though the order of interim injunction was in force, the appellant/petitioner filed a Contempt Petition annoyed by which, he was once again suspended on 23.11.2005 without assigning any reason. c. In W.P. No.39384 of 2005 filed by the appellant/petitioner, the suspension order was stayed and he was subsequently posted to another village. In W.P. No.19370 of 2006 filed by the appellant/petitioner on the ground that no charge memo was issued for the second suspension, this Court had directed the third respondent to dispose of the departmental enquiry on or before 31.10.2006. Further, the appellant/petitioner had filed yet another writ petition in W.P. No.45005 of 2006 to direct the third respondent to relieve him from the charges in which this Court had ordered to complete the enquiry and pass orders on the Charge Memo against the appellant/petitioner on or before 31.12.2006 after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to examine the witnesses, viz., the Tahsildar and the District Revenue Officer. d. In reply to the show cause notice dated 08.12.2006 asking him to appear for an enquiry before the third respondent on 18.12.2006 which was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant/petitioner had written that such Enquiry Report is not valid since the enquiry was conducted without examining witnesses, that too, without serving the Enquiry Report on him which was served only later along with another show cause notice dated 21.12.2006. No opportunity was provided to him to examine witnesses, despite the direction given by this Court to this effect and this being the position, he had received on 04.01.2007, the order dated 29.12.2006 removing him from service and hence, he had filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge as already stated in the beginning and hence, the present appeal.

(3.) REBUTTING the above, the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that the learned Single has taken cognizance of this aspect and has categorically held that the appellant/petitioner was simply sending letters instead of appearing in person for enquiry and that since the respondents were to dispose of the enquiry proceedings before the date stipulated by this Court, i.e. 31.12.2006, the impugned order came to be passed and these findings of the learned Single Judge do not call for any intervention. He has further contended that the appellant/petitioner should have first exhausted the statutory appeal remedy available to him under the rules challenging the order of removal from service passed by the third respondent herein, before rushing to this Court to file the writ petition.