S VADIVEL Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brief resume of facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Grade II Warder in the year 1999. When he was placed under suspension by order dated 28. 2. 2001, which was served on him on 1. 3. 2001, he challenged the same before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1907 of 2001 and an order of stay was granted by the Tribunal on 13. 3. 2001. In the meantime, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 1. 3. 2001, which was served on him on 2. 3. 2001.

(2.) 2. 1. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is stated that on 16. 8. 2002, when the petitioner was working at Sub Jail, Sathiyamangalam, it was found that the petitioner has gone out of the jail without handing over the prisoners properly and a charge under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was framed and an order of punishment was passed against him on 10. 12. 2002 postponing increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect.

(3.) 3. 1. Mr. S. Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly submit on the basis of the various aspects of depositions made by witnesses to substantiate his case that by appreciation of the evidence of various witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution it will be proved that no case has been made out against the petitioner. He would also submit that the Appellate Authority has not given reasons, for which he would rely upon the decision in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney, [2009] 4 SCC 240.