K CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER MADURAI EAST PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated that the petitioner was working as Road Inspector in the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), Madurai West, Madurai. The petitioner was on deputation to the Madurai East Panchayat Union from 11.7.1989. On 9.12.1991, he had applied for leave on medical grounds. When he was on leave, the Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, had requested the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madurai, to depute a substitute for being posted in the place of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has further stated that he had submitted a representation to the said Divisional Engineer requesting him to post the petitioner in Madurai West Sub Division. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted in Madurai North Section and he had joined duty on 10.2.1992. THE Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union, had issued an order of suspension in Roc.No.A1/9318/1991, dated 5.2.1992, placing the petitioner under suspension. THE said order had been passed after the petitioner had joined duty in his parent Department. THEreafter, the Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union had issued an order in Na.Ka.A1/2961/92, dated 4.5.1992, directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,79,868/-, which was alleged to have been due from the petitioner in respect of the works done under J.V.V.T. Scheme. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner, on 25.8.1992, by the Panchayat Union Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.A1/9318/91, dated 25.8.1992. THE charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of THE Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. THE allegations against the petitioner were that he did not remit a sum of Rs.79,045/- being the balance with him out of the advance money received for the works and that he did not surrender the building materials worth Rs.1,00,823/-. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not complete the work in time.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the alleged guilt of the petitioner has not been proved till date, either by way of disciplinary proceedings or in a criminal case. THE impugned order of the first respondent, dated 26.4.1993, had been issued even before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case.