A SENGODAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is working as a Forester in the Forest Department. A proceedings was initiated against the petitioner for certain act alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner. A Charge memo has been issued on 02.06.1999 against the petitioner by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Salem in T.D.P case No.1 of 1999. In the said proceedings, findings have been given by the Tribunal on 30.05.2001. THEreafter, an explanation was called for from the petitioner by the second respondent on 29.01.2002 enclosing a copy of the proceedings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. On the receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation on 22.04.2002. After considering the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, namely second respondent herein, has awarded a punishment of Censure. THE Tribunal has also exonerated the petitioner in so far as charges 2 and 3 are concerned which have been confirmed by the second respondent.

(2.) IN so far as, the charge No.1 is concerned, the petitioner has been charged that he has deliberately not filed a complaint against one Mr.Arunachalam by receiving a illegal gratification of sum of Rs.6,500/-. The second respondent has considered the relevant materials including the findings of the Tribunal as well as the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 before coming to the conclusion. The second respondent has also given a finding that the evidence of P.W.1 namely Mrs. Janasakthi, W/o.Arunachalam shows the involvement of the said person in earlier forest offences and was also arrested and released on bail. Therefore, the second respondent has given a finding, that the said statement has to be taken in an appropriate spirit. The second respondent has also observed that there are contradictions and conflicting version of P.Ws who happened to be close relatives of the offender. However, for the above reasons, an order of Censure has been passed by the second respondent.

(3.) THE record reveals that in pursuance to the same, the first respondent has requested the second respondent to send the original record in and by its letter dated 06.12.2003. THEreafter the first respondent has initiated Suo Motu proceedings exercising its powers under Rule 36 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. THE petitioner has challenged the said proceedings dated 14.08.2005, initiated by the first respondent, which is a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner should not be awarded a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 3 years. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Since the petitioner has not given a reply, the first respondent has chosen to initiate proceedings and pass the final order imposing the punishment of withholding the future increments for 3 years with cummulative effect. THE petitioner has also filed Miscellaneous application in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 seeking to amend the prayer by including the prayer for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the final order passed by the first respondent dated 30.06.2009 under Rule 36 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal). This Miscellaneous petition stands allowed.