S ILANGO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is an Assistant Engineer in the Highways and Rural Works Department. He was working in the National Highways-I Section, of the National Highways-I Division, Madurai. Having been appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Highways and Rural Works Department, on 18.6.84, he had been sent on deputation to the panchayat Development Department, as a Union Engineer, K. Mayladumbarai Panchayat Union, from 30.4.91. Thus, he had worked as a Union Engineer from 30.4.91 to 30.12.92. THEreafter, he was transferred back to his parent Department and posted as an Assistant Engineer, National Highways-I Section, Madurai from 4.2.93.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was a permanent Government servant and he was sent on deputation to the Panchayat Union Mayiladumparai and therefore, the District Collector, Madurai, is incompetent to enforce any order of penalty without consulting the parent department of the petitioner. Further, the Collector is not competent to enforce any major penalty on the petitioner as a deputationist. Even assuming that the order of the recovery issued against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,95,699/- is not a major penalty, the Collector is not competent to enforce the penalty on the petitioner after he had left the service of the Panchayat Union and re-joined in his parent department. Further, the order of recovery passed against the petitioner, without consulting the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), is illegal and contrary to Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. Further, the District Collector, Madurai, has resorted to the recovery, even without issuing a charge memo, under Rule 17(a) of the C.C.S. and C.C.A. Rules. Since the final orders have been passed without holding an enquiry, when the petitioner had denied the charges, the said order would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. THE order of the District Collector, Madurai, seeking to recover twice the cost of the materials is without any basis and it is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. THE impugned order had been passed without proper apportionment of the liability amongst the other officers who were found to be responsible. Since the petitioner was not liable for the stock deficit, the impugned order cannot be held to be valid.