N GOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Proceedings No. DC4/55135/96 dated 7. 10. 2003, Memo No. DC4/55135/96 dated 14. 1. 2004, Memo No. DC4/55135/96-3 dated 10. 6. 2005 and Memo No. DC4/55135/96 dated 3. 10. 2005, on the file of the 2nd respondent and Letter No. 19197-A/hbi (2)/2005 dated 28. 10. 2005, on the file of the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE gist of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Divisional Accountant in Special Division-II, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore, he was kept under suspension on 22. 6. 1998, on the ground of certain irregularities committed by him; that further, a charge memo was served upon him on 6. 7. 1998, alleging irregularities in the allotment of rental quarters; that a detailed reply was given by him; that the explanation was not found satisfactory; that thereafter, there was an Enquiry Officer appointed; that he was of the opinion that the charge was not proved; that when the matter was placed before the Managing Director of the Board, he has got a dissenting view and found that it has been proved; that there was an imposition of punishment of withholding of 1/3rd pension for a period of five years; that he preferred an appeal, and it has been rejected as if it was out of time, and hence, the petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition before this Court.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, there was no irregularity in the allotment of rental quarters by the petitioner; that he was not the final authority for allotment; that as far as the allotment was concerned, while number of persons are involved, no enquiry has been initiated; that he was the only person found fault with and proceeded against; that even the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge has not been proved; that under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Managing Director to take a different view; that once the representations have been made, they have not been considered; that after making the representation, finally the appeal has been preferred; that the same has been rejected since it was out of time, that apart from that, he has attained superannuation in the month of June 1998; but, he has not been allowed to retire in view of the pendency of the proceedings, and under the circumstances, the writ petition has got to be ordered.