R VENKATESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the second respondent namely the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner, Madras, made in Proc. R. No. T1/23327/2007 (F. O. No. 207/07) dated 9. 5. 2007 and in Memo R. No. 75848/v4/05 dated 4. 5. 2006, by filing these two writ petitions respectively. He also seeks a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I and seeks to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo.

(2.) THE affidavits in support of the petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

(3.) CONCEDEDLY, the petitioner who was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II on 7. 12. 2000, was working at the Regional Transport Office, Dharmapuri. During the relevant time, he was working in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Salem. He was again transferred to Motor Vehicle Inspectors Unit Office, Hosur, on 12. 11. 2005, and he joined duty on 17. 11. 2005 and was working so. While so, 19. 11. 2005 and 20. 11. 2005 were holidays, and he went on medical leave from 21. 11. 2005 to 27. 11. 2005. He joined duty on 28. 11. 2005. While he was actually on duty that day, there was a surprise inspection made by the Officials of the District Cell. Following the same, there was a charge memo issued on 4. 5. 2006, under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, containing three charges. He also put forth his reply stating that the contents of the charges were false. Then, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Salem, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and it was conducted on two occasions. But, he retired from service. Thereafter, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed. Under the circumstances, these two writ petitions have been brought forth.