SELATHURAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case were the second respondent being the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal confirming the original authority's order namely third respondent's order imposing penalty on the petitioner taking note of the fact that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner who is working as a Chief Head Warder at Vellore District was working as Superintendent, Central Prision-I (Convicts), Puzhal, in the year 2006. A charge memo was issued by the third respondent framing charges under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges are that:-

(2.) AFTER the petitioner has submitted his explanation for the charge memo denying the charges, the third respondent has appointed Mr. Manickam, Jailor, Central Prison to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 08. 02. 2007 has held that all charges are proved and accepting the said Enquiry Officer's report and based on the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent has passed order of punishment on 29. 03. 2007 imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for two years without cumulative effect.

(3.) AS against the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed Appeal before the second respondent on 25. 05. 2007 and it is stated that without considering any grounds raised by the petitioner, the second respondent has passed the impugned order. The operative portion of which is as follows:-***