P.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent, dated 25.02.2014 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 02.04.2014 and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Assistant Jailor with monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner while serving as Assistant Jailor in Madurai Central Prison served with a charge memo. Later after holding enquiry, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed by the impugned order of the third respondent. On further appeal before the second respondent, the appellate authority also confirmed the punishment. Thereafter, challenging the order of third respondent and the second respondent the above writ petition is filed.

(3.) It is stated in the charge memo that on 06.10.2013, which was the first Sunday of the month October an interview was conducted for the prisoners. During the interview, one of the prisoner by name Shanmugasuriya @ shanmugam was searched by the gate warden namely Manikandan and seized a sum of Rs.2,300/- from him. On enquiry, the prisoner has stated that the money was received by him from his wife through the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner collected a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the prisoner's wife and gave only a sum of Rs. 2,300/-, to the prisoner and get a sum of Rs.700/- by way of commission. Based on the incident further proceedings were initiated. The specific charges framed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner was referred to in the Annexure in the charge memo which refers to Rule, 146, 147 and 493, 126, 127 apart from Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. After getting explanation from the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the third respondent after considering the findings of the enquiry officer and further explanations of the petitioner passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal.