V ANDIAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo issued by the second respondent in Rc. No. 20381/95-A2 dated 22. 11. 1995 under rule 17 (b) of the CCA Rules.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, as under: (a) The petitioner, who was working as an Executive Officer (Selection Grade), Senthamangalam Town Panchayat, was issued a charge memo in Proc. Rc. No. 61217/92-P3 dated 01. 07. 1992 under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules challenging some irregularities in connection with the water supply. He was placed under suspension on 25. 08. 1992 on the ground of contemplated enquiry into grave charges. Challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 4315 of 1992 and the Tribunal stayed the order of suspension; subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service in Rc. No. 61217/92-P3 dated 02. 12. 1992 as Executive Officer, Town Panchayat and posted to Maichery Town Panchayat and he joined duty on 08. 12. 1992. (b) Since the petitioner approached the Tribunal, the District Collector, Salem as a vindictive measure issued a Charge Memo in Rc. No. 61217/92/ (P3) dated 18. 11. 1992 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, containing the 10 charges specified in charge memo dated 01. 07. 1992 under Rule 17 (a) and 13 other fresh charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07. 07. 1995 denying the charges in the charge memo dated 18. 11. 1992 and also stating that all audit objections have been settled and that the charges against him may be dropped. (c) Thereafter, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Director of Town Panchayat, the second respondent issued the charge memo in Rc. No. 20381/95-A2 dated 22. 11. 1995 under Rule 17 (b) of the CCA Rules against the petitioner containing the same charges which were specified in the charge memo dated 18. 11. 1992. Aggrieved by the second charge memo dated 22. 11. 1995, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated as follows: