K SIVAKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner was previously working as an Assistant at the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Erode. A charge memo was issued to him by the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.96937/99 A4 dated 07.12.1999. THEre were two charges framed against the petitioner. THE first charge is to the effect that the petitioner tampered with the records to favour one Mr. Swaminathan. THE second charge is to the effect that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to do the above favour. THE letter said to have been given by the petitioner on 05.11.1999 to the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Erode admitting the guilt is the material evidence available on record. Based on the said letter, charge sheet was laid in which some witnesses were cited. One Mr. M. Muthaiah, Assistant Commissioner Excise, Erode was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. During enquiry, in respect of the first charge, no witness was examined and no document was exhibited. In respect of the second charge, Mr. Swaminathan was examined and he was cross examined by the petitioner. Based on the same, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report by his proceedings in Mu.Mu.J4/11507/2000 dated 30.06.2000 holding that in the matter of tampering the official records, the petitioner might have had a part to play. Based on the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) IN respect of the second charge, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, though in chief examination, Mr. Swaminathan has deposed that he gave Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, during cross examination, he has resiled from the earlier statement. Curiously, in the Enquiry Officer-s report, I am able to see that the Enquiry Officer has stated that he enquired Mr. Swaminathan both in the presence of the petitioner and also personally in a discrete manner, which shows that he does not know even the basic principles of law relating to the enquiry. I do not know how the Enquiry Officer could have such discrete enquiry in respect of the charges with the vital witness in the absence of the delinquent. IN the conclusion also, the Enquiry Officer has not stated that the petitioner is solely responsible and that the charges stood proved. What all he has stated in his report is that the petitioner might have had a part to play in this misdeed.