COMMISSIONER, TIRUNELVELI CORPORATION Vs. C CHELLADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation is on appeal, challenging the order dated 20th March 2012, allowing W.P.(MD) No.13305 of 2011, filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The respondent herein was appointed as Health Assistant in the appellant Corporation on 04th December 1979 and was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 06th October 1994. He reached the age of superannuation on 31st March 2009. Before he reached the age of superannuation, he was issued with a charge memo on 14th March 2009. The said charge memo contains 4 articles of charge. The first article of charge alleged that the writ petition was responsible for causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,637/-, by his omission to collect certain statutory dues payable to the Corporation. The charge Nos.3 and 4 were to the effect that the writ petitioner had committed misappropriation. Since the charge memo was issued on 14th March 2009, the writ petitioner obviously would have had to face enquiry and he would not have been allowed to retire in the normal course of events. The writ petitioner, thereafter, submitted a handwritten letter requesting the appellant Corporation to deduct the amount in question and drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. He also executed a bond dated 17th March 2009 in this regard. The writ petitioner had specifically consented for deduction of sum of Rs.1,65,884/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.5250/- from the DCRG amount payable to the writ petitioner. Accepting the said request made by the writ petitioner, the Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, by proceedings in rp1/12260/08 dated 31st March 2009, permitted the writ petitioner to retire from service subject to the condition that the amount in question would be deducted from the employee's DCRG. After retirement from service, the writ petitioner submitted a representation dated 29th November 2010, seeking refund of the said recovery amount. He thereafter, filed W.P.(MD) No.13305 of 2011.

(3.) The learned Judge took the view that disciplinary action cannot be initiated for omission to recover time barred tax arrears. The earlier decisions of this Court, particularly, the decision (N.Mani V. Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, 2006 1 CTC 632) were referred to. Since the very basis of the main charge against the petitioner was found to be unsustainable, the writ petition was allowed and the appellant Corporation was directed to refund the amount recovered from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.