M RAJAMBAL Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of suspension dated 27.8.2008.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Copyist in the Judicial Ministerial Service on 20.3.1985 and she was posted as Serishtadar Assistant in the Sub-Court, Sankari, on 14.11.2000 and served in the said post till 20.6.2005. On 23.7.2004, the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, received an information from the Typist of the Sub-Court, Salem, that the Court fees stamp papers are missing from the case bundle, in which she was typing the decree. THE learned Sub-Judge, on instruction from the Principal District Judge, Salem, inquired into the matter and found that the Court fees stamp papers to the value of Rs.3,27,782.25ps were found missing from various case bundles of that Court. THE learned Judge, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to ten staff members of that Court. Proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, against the then Serishtadar and others. THE learned Sub Judge, on 8.2.2006, initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the said Rules. THE charge alleged against the petitioner reads as follows:"You, Tmt.M.Rajambal, while working as Serishtadar Assistant, in Sub Court, Sankari, on receipt of the court fee stamp papers filed along with the plaint for registering the same in Register No.19 after initialing on the same by Serishtadar, you failed to count and calculate the value of the court fee stamp and record the same in the register. Thus, you failed to perform your duty. This act of you amounts an offence under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Conduct and Appeal) Rules."THE petitioner submitted explanation for the said charge memo on 26.4.2006 and denied the charge.

(3.) THE said order of suspension is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the First Information Report registered in crime No,38 of 2004 and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's name is not stated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in his report dated 25.8.2008 about her involvement and prayed for setting aside of the suspension order.