N SIVAKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Village Administrative Officer removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry of charges of receipt of illegal gratification and misappropriation has challenged the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 3.11.1995 and the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.669 dated 14.12.1995 and consequentially for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with service and monetary benefits.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioner has raised several contentions assailing the impugned orders on the grounds of lack of evidence, non-consideration of his explanation in proper perspective and other grounds, Mr. R. Singaravelan learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has failed to consider the statutory appeal with reference to the parameter set in Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

(3.) REFERRING to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules 1973 and placing reliance on the decision in Director, (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another v. Santhosh Kumar (2006) 11 SCC 47, the Divisional Authorized Officer, Kothakudam and Others v. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 2 SCC 617 and Steel Authority of India v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela 1 Circle and Others (2008) 5 SCC 281, Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings have held that charges 2 and 3 as hot proved, the Government while rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, came to an erroneous conclusion that all the charges are proved and confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. REFERRING to paragraph 8 of the appellate authority's order, he further submitted that there is absolutely no indication (1) as to whether the appellate authority had considered the facts on which the penalty was imposed were properly established and (2) whether the facts established offered sufficient ground for taking action against the petitioner. He further submitted that the appellate authority-had considered only one aspect, i.e. the quantum of penalty and failed to consider the other important parameters, which are imperative in nature. He further submitted that the appellate authority being the final fact finding authority ought to have examined the entire records and passed a speaking order, setting out the reasons for rejecting the appeal. According to him, omission to examine the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, with reference to the statutory provisions amounts to failure to exercise the statutory duties. He further submitted that if the statute mandates particular thing to be done in a manner, the appellate authority has to do the thing in the same manner and not otherwise. On these grounds, the prayer that the order of the appellate authority to set aside with direction to consider the matter afresh in the light of Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.