A RAVI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed to quash the order of the second respondent in G. O. 2 (D) No. 515, Revenue (Ser. 2 (2)Department, dated 28. 12. 2005 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as District Revenue Officer from the date of promotion of his juniors with all monetary and attendant benefits.

(2.) THOUGH the writ petition is filed challenging the impugned proceedings for the relief of promotion and all other monetary and attendant benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his plea with regard to the quantum of punishment imposed stating that there is total non application of mind by the authority while imposing the punishment. It is bereft of reasons and therefore, it has to be set aside.

(3.) THE petitioner was working as a Deputy Collector and on deputation posted as Administrative Officer in Anna Institute of Management, Chennai. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 15. 3. 2002 under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, wherein, the following five charges have been framed against the petitioner. " Charge. 1. : Due to his ineffective supervision of cash accounts during his tenure as Assistant Commissioner II, O/o the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai, there were delays in disbursement of cash to the staff, by Thiru L. Kumar, the then Cashier and Superintendent ranging from 7 days to 3 months as detailed in the Annexure VI and VII. Charge 2: Being a Drawing Officer, he should have verified the cash accounts daily, properly and thoroughly. He failed in this basic and important duty, which resulted in the belated disbursement of encashed cheque payments to the staff by Thiru L. Kumar, the then Cashier and Superintendent ranging from 8 days to 3 months as detailed in Annexure VIII and IX. Charge 3: He failed to check the actions of Thiru L. Kumar, the then Cashier and Superintendent, who was in the habit of remitting amount recovered from the salaries of staff belatedly, such as postal Recurring Deposit, L. I. C. Premium and other Bank loan, as detailed in Annexure V. Charge 4 : In respect of the following items, the amounts have been remitted into drawing officer account, but the details of such deposits and disbursement have not been furnished in the Cash Book. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1271_TLMAD0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> 5. Being a drawing officer, he has shown extreme form of dereliction of duty to monitor the cash transaction done by Thiru L. Kumar, Cashier cum Superintendent which paved way of temporary misappropriation of Government money by him. Thus by his failure to monitor the basic duty involving financial transaction, he has shown total incapability and ineffectiveness as a drawing officer. "