K JAYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1020 of 2000. Such Original Application was filed by the present petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Director of Survey & Land Records, Chennai.

(3.) WE are not impressed by the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that before the disciplinary Tribunal, D.E.No.44 of 1989 had been initiated. But, the petitioner himself had challenged such enquiry and the State Administrative Tribunal, while setting aside the enquiry, directed the disciplinary authority to consider the matter afresh. At that stage, even though charges were framed under Rule 17(b), the Assistant Director, however, simply let-off the petitioner by issuing a warning without holding any enquiry. Issuing such warning itself cannot be considered as a punishment. Moreover, the Director being the Reviewing authority, came across such irregularity and directed that the proceedings should be continued. The delay was obviously on account of the pendency of such proceedings either before the State Administrative Tribunal or before the Reviewing authority. Keeping in view such circumstances and also seriousness of the allegations, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Director nor it can be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the order of the Tribunal.