N JANAKIRAMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FORT ST GEORGE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Government passed in G.O.Rt. No. 1191, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 10.8.1983 passing an order of reduction permanently in rank from the post of Bill Collector to chain man.

(2.) The petitioner is a direct recruit to the post of Bill Collector and he was working from 1.4.1965. The petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 4.9.1972. An explanation was called for from him and he was reinstated in service on 8.1.1973 as Bill Collector. Another charge memo was issued on him on 19.6.1973 and an explanation was called for from him, which was given by him on 28.6.1973. An order of permanent reversion was passed on 1.9.1973 reverting the petitioner as chain man. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of Municipal Administration on 14.7.1976 which was rejected in 1977. The petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent Government on 24.7.1979. Again, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and he also submitted the same. By order dated 25.6.1981, the petitioner was reinstated to the post of Bill Collector. It is to be seen that the charges against the petitioner were that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 115.05 p. It has also to be stated that the petitioner was issued a notice by the first respondent, after considering Fundamental Rule 29 (2) and he was reinstated in service by order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 1937, dated 16.12.1980 on the ground that the period of reversion has not been specified in this case which amounts to reversion as a permanent measure and which is not in order as contrary to Fundamental Rule 29 (2). By the same order, the first respondent Government requested the Commissioner of Pallavapuram Municipality to send all the connected records for further examination by the Government. After a thorough examination of the case, the Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25.6.1981 as to why the penalty of dismissal from municipal service should not be imposed on him for the charges held proved in the disciplinary enquiry. Since the petitioner did not deny the charges in his reply to the show cause notice, the first respondent passed an order reverting the petitioner as basis servant.

(3.) The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that under the Fundamental Rules as well as under the Municipal Manual dealing with the appointments and punishments of the officers and servants of the Municipal Councils, under Chapter 17 (4) no one can be dismissed or removed without being informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. It is also stated in the affidavit that under Fundamental Rule 29-A that once the order of reduction is set aside, the person concerned has to be given the difference in the pay which he would have been (SIC) to. It is further stated that for the first time when charges were framed against the petitioner, after considering his explanation the second respondent dropped further action. When the same charges were framed for the second time, there was no charge of misappropriation much less the misappropriation of Rs. 115.05 p. and the first respondent incorrectly refers to in his order dated 10.8.1983 as if misappropriation charges were framed against the petitioner both the times and held to be proved. The petitioner further alleges than on both occasions, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided and no enquiry was conducted.