J MARIADOSS Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in proceedings No. Na.Ka.2502/93/A-1, dated 14.1.99 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same.) The petitioner, Office Assistant attached to the Commercial Tax Department, was alleged to have removed a mini lorry from the compound of Commercial Tax Department without any orders from the Superior Officer, has challenged the order of his dismissal, from service.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner was employed as Office Assistant in Commercial Tax Department and he was working in commercial Tax Enforcement wing, Madras North. On 23.4.1993, when the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mr.Thanikachalam was checking the vehicles plying on road in Puduvayal village within the then Chengai M.G.R. District, one Mini Lorry TAC 135 did not stop, when it was intercepted. THE vehicle was chased and lateron, it was found abandoned at Chakkaraichettikulam. At that time, there was no driver or owner in the vehicle and therefore, after giving a complaint to the police and as per the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner took the Mini Lorry TAC 135, drove the same and parked it in the Commercial Tax Building at Greams Road, Chennai.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, a charge memo was framed on 10.12.93 by the third respondent. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner his explanation dated 29.12.1993, has stated that on 23.4.93, he accompanied the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/Roving Squard III for the Lorry check. As the goods vehicle TAC 135 did not stop at the checking point, the vehicle was chased and found near Chakkarai Chettikulamj. Neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle was not found. Investigation further revealed that the vehicle was brought to Greams Road, commercial Taxes compound by him, under the instructions of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the goods vehicle was parked there. In his explanation, he further submitted that as per the instructions of the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- and after receiving the money, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer instructed him to take the goods vehicles and deliver the same at the appropriate place. In his explanation, he has also submitted that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was handed over to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and without instructions, he would not have removed the vehicle. According to him, the vehicle was removed from Greams Road office Complex only on the oral instructions of the Deputy commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squard III. To that effect, he has also informed the other Night Watchman. The respondents have further submitted that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner has made allegations against his superior officer. That the superior officer, after receiving Rs.5,000/- had instructed him to remove the vehicle and thereafter has paid the money to him.