A BOMMUSAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.1998 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') dismissing the Original Applications, O.A. Nos.1441 and 3058 of 1993, the original applicant has filed the above Writ Petitions.

(2.) THE petitioner's case, in brief, is that while he was working as Deputy Registrar at Tuticorin during 1985-86, one Thangavelu joined as Joint Registrar, that dispute arose between him and the said Thangavelu in the matter of use of the official jeep and maintenance of the records therefor, that to avoid the situation, the petitioner failed to repair the jeep when it developed a trouble and on account of the said Thangavelu, Joint Registrar had framed four charges against him vide Charge Memo in Na.Ka. No.4064/87/A2 dated 27/22-2-1987 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules') involving minor penalty procedure, that later on the Joint Registrar altered the said charges from Rule 17(a) to Rule 17(b) involving major penalty procedure and issued a Charge Memo dated 13.3.1987, that he was placed under suspension by order dated 25.3.1987, when he was due to retire on 31.3.1987, that on the report submitted by the Joint Registrar, Tuticorin, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies framed two charges, alleging (i) misappropriation of Rs.1000/- from the funds of Arumuganeri Agricultural Co-operative Bank and (ii) misappropriation of Rs.1000/- from the funds of THEnthirupathi Agricultural Co-operative Bank, that in the enquiry held in respect of the said charges, he was warned and censured respectively that on the basis of the report submitted by Thangavelu, Joint Registrar, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him on the tile of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings of Madurai Region at Madras and the Tribunal submitted a report to the Government stating that the charges have been held proved, that a second show cause notice was issued to him calling upon his explanation against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service, that he submitted a representation on 8.6.1991, that the Government, after obtaining the views of the Public Service Commission, passed the order dated 21.1.1993 dismissing him from service.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was due for retirement on 31.3.1987 and the third respondent, with whom the petitioner had a friction in the matter of use and maintenance of the official jeep, with a view to wreak vengeance against him started levelling series of charges against the petitioner. The third respondent first issued a charge memo dated 27.2.1987 under Rule 17(a) of the Rules (minor penalty procedure) and on receipt of the petitioner's explanation, he issued an amended Charge Memo dated 13.3.1987 involving major penalty procedure. This itself would show the attempt of the third respondent in not allowing the petitioner to retire peacefully. The petitioner has maintained unblemished service record and earned appreciation from the predecessors of the third respondent and the trouble came to the petitioner in the form of dispute with the third respondent in the matter of use of the official jeep. The third respondent had created evidence against the petitioner and submitted a report which was accepted by the first respondent resulting in dismissal of the petitioner from service at the fag end of his service career. The Supreme Court, by catena of several decisions, has deprecated in strong expressions the practice of placing an employee under suspension at the fag end of his service career and initiating Disciplinary Proceedings for the alleged misconduct committed long back. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate this basic aspect of the case in proper perspective.