N PUGALENDRAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner was working as a Sanitary Inspector at Tiruvarur Municipality. While so, a charge memo, dated 31. 8. 1998, was issued to him, under Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1973, by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him, on 14. 9. 1998. There were four charges levelled against the petitioner. Charges had also been levelled against five officers. The charges are as follows: "charge no. 1:

(3.) PURSUANT to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed to go into the charges. The enquiry officer had given his findings stating that the first two charges were proved and the third and the fourth charges were not proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, a memo had been issued to the petitioner and he was asked to give his defence statement. Thereafter, a show cause notice had been issued by the Secretary to government, Municipal Administration Water supply Department, on 10. 4. 2000. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice, on 17. 5. 2000. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner the respondent had awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment, for two years, with cumulative effect, to the petitioner.