COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION Vs. R SWAMINATHAN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.9354 of 2006, the respondents in the writ petition have filed the above Writ Appeal.

(2.) The respondents / petitioners filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9354 of 2006 to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the order passed by him, dated 06.03.1995 and the subsequent proceedings dated 18.04.1995 and its connected order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated 21.02.2005 and consequential order passed by the third respondent in letter dated 01.03.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits.

(3.) It is the case of the respondents/petitioners that they are the wife, daughter and parents of one Swaminathan, who suffered an order of termination from service for serious charges of fabrication of documents, breach of trust, misappropriation and unauthorised absence for committing certain acts unbecoming of Government Servant. The delinquent was issued with a charge memo dated 03.05.1994 and on his failure to submit any explanation for the charges, he was subjected to departmental enquiry and in the course of which, statements were obtained by the enquiry officer. According to the enquiry officer's report, the delinquent admitted his guilt in respect of the charges framed against him. However, according to the delinquent, his signatures were forcibly obtained in blank papers by the then Commissioner and the same were misused for creating statements to the effect that he admitted the charges framed against him. Based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the delinquent regarding the proposed punishment of termination of service, for which, the delinquent filed his explanation raising serious objections and in spite of the same, the delinquent was imposed the punishment of termination of service for the charges held to be proved against him. Aggrieved over the same, the delinquent has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The first respondent, viz., the appellate authority, rejected the appeal preferred by the delinquent, against which, the delinquent has filed writ petition.