V RAMARATHNAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 6. 1. 1986, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the third respondent dated 19. 3. 1979 removing him from the service of the District Central Library, was rejected.

(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as under: the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian in the District Central Library, Tanjore on 20. 8. 1964. Originally he was working at Tanjore and he was transferred to Aduthurai Branch Local Library and later to Sholapuram Branch Library. While he was working as Assistant Librarian at Sholapuram Branch Library, he was suspended from service with effect from 19. 12. 1978 in contemplation of taking disciplinary action against him. Thereafter a charge memo was issued to him on 7. 2. 1979 containing as many as 53 charges. As directed by the third respondent, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo and subsequently without conducting any enquiry in the matter, the petitioner was removed from service as per the order passed by the third respondent dated 19. 3. 1979. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the second respondent and the said appeal was also dismissed as per order dated 21. 9. 1979. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the first respondent as provided under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Though the appeal was filed within the statutory period, the first respondent did not pass orders on the statutory appeal. Therefore the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 4292 of 1985 and this Court as per order dated 29. 4. 1985 directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently the matter was considered by the second respondent again and as per order dated 6. 1. 1986, the second respondent rejected the same and aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it was their case that on account of the grave irregularities committed by the petitioner during his service as Assistant Librarian, he was issued with a charge sheet and after receipt his explanation, the petitioner was asked as to whether he requires the matter to be enquired into by appointing an enquiry officer, to which the petitioner has submitted that he was not prepared to appear before any such enquiry officer and as such after considering the explanation so submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have passed the order of removal from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also considered by the appellate authority independently and the appellate authority came to a categorical conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and as such the said order does not require interference in the present writ petition.