A.PERUMAL Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1989/Pa I 3/2004 dated 23. 09. 2009 and the consequential appellate order passed by the 1st respondent in Government Order (2D) No. 11 Minor, Small and Medium Scale Industries (Pani. 2. 2) Department, dated 02. 05. 2011 and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Office Assistant under the control of the 3rd respondent. He was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 18. 01. 2008. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a charge memo on 01. 07. 2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and thereby framed two charges for the incident took place on 08. 01. 2008. The charges levelled against the petitioner is that on 08. 01. 2008, at about 09. 45 p. m. , with consumption of liquor, he and one Mr. A. Pandian, driver of the office, damaged the window glasses of the District Manager Room and thereby caused damages to the Government properties. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the 2nd respondent on 28. 07. 2008 denying the charges and pointed out that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner has not consumed any liquor and further the damages were caused by the driver namely Mr. A. Pandian.

(3.) According to the petitioner, Mr. A. Pandian, driver, himself has admitted the above guilt before the Sub Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Dindigul, and gave a statement also. But, in contrary to the above factual aspects, the charges were levelled against the petitioner without any substantial material and evidence. An enquiry officer was appointed by the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings, dated 19. 09. 2009 and the enquiry officer conducted enquiry in a biased manner and the petitioner was not permitted to produce witnesses. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry based on the apology letter submitted by the driver before the Police Station on 27. 01. 2009 and the 2nd respondent / disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 23. 09. 2009, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and also directed to recover the subsistence allowance, which was granted to the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and since the same was not considered, he filed W. P(MD)No. 3476 of 2010 seeking to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 23. 09. 2009, in which, this Court, by order dated 18. 03. 2010, directed the the 1 st respondent / appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of six weeks. But the 1st respondent without answering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the order by rejecting the appeal in respect of punishment of stoppage of increment alone and by recovery of subsistence allowance, was dropped. Against which, the present writ petition has been filed.