MAHALAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, VIRUDHUNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has focussed the present intra-court Writ Appeal as an 'aggrieved person', as against the order, dated 11.08.2017, in W.P(MD)No.15187 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 11.8.2017 in W.P)(MD)No.15187 of 2017(filed by the Appellant as Writ Petitioner) at paragraph 5, had observed the following:

(3.) Questioning the order of dismissal, dated 11.08.2017 in W.P(MD)No.15187 of 2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal before this Court by taking a plea that the order of the Learned Single Judge is ab-initio void and ex-facie an illegal one. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to point out that the Respondent had failed to consider none of the grounds or reasons mentioned under Section 17(e)5 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a plea that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has not swindled any money in connivance with any other persons, especially during her tenure as a Junior Assistant in the Office of the P.A(S.S.) to the District Collector. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that none of the prosecution witnesses had even whispered the Appellant's name except P.W.7, the Inspection Officer in that Ex.P26 is said to be the Voucher for payment of incentive to the Small Savings Agent. In short, in the Criminal Case, there is no iota of evidence was let into, to prove the impugned charge framed against the Appellant.