M D MATHIVANAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer, on 12. 4. 1984, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Initially, he was posted in Dharmapuri District and later, he was transferred to Salem District, during the year 1988. At the time of the filing of the original application he was serving as a Village Administrative Officer at Puduppalayam in Thiruchencode Taluk, Salem District. He was suspended from service, on 2. 11. 1991, and the order of suspension had been revoked by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari, after a period of six months, on 15. 4. 1992. The Tahsildar, Thiruchencode, by his proceedings, dated 20. 12. 1991, had directed the petitioner to appear before him, on 21. 12. 1991, for a preliminary enquiry regarding the collection of land revenue pertaining to the fasali 1400 at Pallipalayam Agragaram Village. After the petitioner had left, the Tahsildar had examined five pattadars of Pallipalayam Agragaram Village. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the preliminary enquiry made with the five pattadars. However, the Tahsildar, had recorded the statements of the Village pattadars in his absence.

(2.) IT has been further stated that, based on the preliminary enquiry, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings, dated 31. 12. 1991, had issued a charge memo, under Rule 17 (b) of the of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge memo contained a questionnaire form. The list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the respondents and the list of documents, which were being relied, had not been furnished to the petitioner as required under law. The copies of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, examined by the Tahsildar during the preliminary enquiry, had not been given. The Documents based on which the charge memo was made, were not furnished to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation, on 9. 1. 1992, requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer to furnish the list of witnesses and the documents necessary for the petitioner to submit his explanation. However, without complying with the request of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order of punishment against the petitioner. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is stoppage of increment for three years, with cumulative effect. The said order was issued by the fifth respondent, vide his proceedings No. 8623/91 A, dated 25. 4. 1992. The said order had been issued without holding an oral enquiry and without furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Salem, challenging the order of the fifth respondent, dated 25. 4. 1992. Since the District Revenue Officer, Salem, the fourth respondent herein, had not passed any order, the petitioner had filed an appeal to the second respondent, namely, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Madras.

(3.) IT has been further stated that the second respondent had given a notice to the petitioner calling for an explanation asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment imposed on the petitioner should not be enhanced. The said notice, is dated 14. 7. 1994. The petitioner had given his explanation to the show cause notice, on 13. 9. 1994. The second respondent, without holding any enquiry and without giving any further opportunity to the petitioner, had enhanced the punishment into stoppage of increment for five years, with cumulative effect, with a specific condition that it would affect the future pensionary benefits of the petitioner. The said order had been issued by the second respondent in Na. A3/34417/94, dated 16. 3. 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the first respondent, on 30. 7. 1995. No orders were passed by the first respondent in the said appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 4586 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W. P. No. 27778 of 2006.