AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the year 1976 in the first Respondent Market Committee. All the staff of the Agricultural Marketing Committee are deemed to be Government Servants with effect from 17.11.1981. Hence the Petitioner has become Government Servant in the year 1981. He married one Jeeva on 02.09.1983 and got three children namely Sudha, Chinnakutty and Chinnraj out of the said marriage. While so, he married one Meena in the year 1996 and got three children by name Pavithra, Balaji and Pappa through the marriage with Meena.
In the said circumstances, Jeeva filed M.C. No. 3191 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur claiming maintenance and the Court also ordered maintenance of Rs. 900/-per month. The Petitioner was granted Special Grade on completion of 20 years of service on 30.07.1998. Jeeva gave a complain on 06.05.2000 that the Petitioner married with one Meena, when his marriage with her was in existence and she requested to take action on the complaint.
Based on her complaint there was a preliminary investigation and it was found that the allegations were prima facie true. In these circumstances, a charge memo dated 04.07.2002 under Rule 17(b) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules was issued alleging that the Petitioner committed misconduct under Rule 19 of The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 by entering a bigamy marriage with Meena, when his marriage with one Jeeva was in existence. He submitted his explanation on 15.07.2002 refuting the charges. He was placed under suspension on 22.07.2002. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. In the enquiry, totally 12 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked. The enquiry officer found that the charges were established. Based on the report of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 24.03.2004 dismissing the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal dated 31.03.2004 to the second Respondent. The second Respondent, the appellate authority, modified the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement by order dated 14.11.2005. The Petitioner has also preferred a revision on 19.12.2005 to the third Respondent. The third Respondent rejected the revision on 23.07.2007. In the meantime the Petitioner also reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006.
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid orders dated 24.03.2004 of the first Respondent, 14.11.2005 of the second Respondent and 19.12.2005 of the third Respondent and for a direction to grant him provisional pension from 30.06.2006, the date on which he reached the age of superannuation and to treat the period between the period of suspension and dismissal period as service period.
The Respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that a due enquiry was conducted and witnesses were examined and opportunity was given and thereafter the Petitioner was dismissed from service. In fact, it is also stated that the appellate authority has modified the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. Therefore, the Petitioner was also sanctioned pension with effect from 24.03.2004. Since there is No. infirmities in the impugned orders, the Respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard both sides.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to argue the case as if I am hearing the appeal and he wanted to reappreciate the evidence that were produced in the departmental enquiry. He wants this Court to come to a different conclusion that of the enquiry authority and other authorities relating to the charge. In the writ proceedings, this Court could not act as an Appellate Authority and this Court could interfere only if it is a case of No. evidence and the report of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority is perverse. I have gone through the report of the enquiry officer. It is a detailed report running to 21 pages. Witnesses were examined and documents were marked and more particularly Tmt. Jeeva, the first wife of the Petitioner who gave the complaint was also examined in the enquiry. Based on the decision made in the enquiry and perusing the documents, the enquiry authority has rendered a finding that the charges were established. In my view there is No. perversity in the order of the enquiry authority that the charge was established and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority and passed the order dated 24.03.2004 dismissing the Petitioner from service. In fact, the said order was modified by the appellate authority by order dated 14.11.2005. In view of the appellate authority order, compulsory retirement was given to the Petitioner and he is entitled to terminal benefits including the pension.
It is brought to my notice that the Accountant General by his order dated 30.01.2008 granted pension to the Petitioner with effect from 24.03.2004. In the counter affidavit the said fact was also mentioned in the penultimate paragraph and the same is extracted hereunder:
It is submitted that pension proposals had been sent to the Accountant General in this Officer reference C1/3597/07 dated 30.01.2008 and order has been received for payment of pension w.e.f 24.03.2004 as per Accountant General Order No. AG(A&E) PEN P 19/1/R 179-1111/com/2007-2008/658 dated 22.4.08. Therefore, the question of sanctioning provision pension does not arise.
Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed. No. costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.