N. Pugalendran vs Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was working as a Sanitary Inspector at Tiruvarur Municipality. While so, a charge memo, dated 31.8.1998, was issued to him,

under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1973, by the Commissioner of Municipal

Administration. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him, on 14.9.1998. There were four charges levelled against

the petitioner. Charges had also been levelled against five officers. The charges are as follows:

Charge No. 1:

that you (Thiru) N. Pugalendran while working as Sanitary Inspector in Tiruvarur Municipality in collusion with the Municipal Commissioner,

Sanitary Officer, Manager, Accountant, Junior Assistant and Thiru. M. Ramasamy, Manager, Institutional Sales Centre, Co-optex, Kumbakonam

are responsible for having issued a cheque for 94,285/- in the personal name of Thiru. M. Ramasamy, manager, Co-optex, Kumbakonam instead

of issuing cheque in favour of Tamil Nadu Handloom Weaver''s Co-operative Society Limited, Kumbakonam, as per procedure in vogue with the

ulterior motive to misappropriate the amount.

Charge No. 2:

that you (Thiru) N. Pugalendran while working as Sanitary Inspector, Tiruvarur Municipality, by having issued the cheque in the personal name of

Thiru. M. Ramasamy, Manager, Cooptex for Rs. 94,285/- paved way for misappropriation of the Municipal Fund.

Charge No. 3:

that you (Thiru) N. Pugalendran, while working as Sanitary Inspector in Tiruvarur Municipality hurriedly adjusted the advance amount paid to

Thiru. M. Ramasamy, Manager, Cooptex, Kumbakonam without even obtaining invoice and the receipt for the amount paid to suppress the facts

of misappropriation.

Charge No. 4:

that you (Thiru) N. Pugalendran while working as Sanitary Inspector in Tiruvarur Municipality have issued cheque for Rs. 94,285/- in the personal

name of Thiru. M. Ramasamy, Manager, Kumbakonam against the procedures in vogue.

Pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed to go into the charges. The enquiry officer had given his

findings stating that the first two charges were proved and the third and the fourth charges were not proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry

officer, a memo had been issued to the petitioner and he was asked to give his defence statement. Thereafter, a show cause notice had been issued

by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration Water supply Department, on 10.4.2000. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the

show cause notice, on 17.5.2000. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner the respondent had awarded the punishment of

stoppage of increment, for two years, with cumulative effect, to the petitioner.

In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent the averments and allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated

that since two of the charges, relating to the actions of the petitioner, which had paved the way for misappropriation of the municipal funds to the

tune of Rs. 94,285/-, levelled against the petitioner, were held to be proved, the respondent had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment

for two years, with cumulative effect, on the petitioner. The petitioner had been given all reasonable chances to defend his case before he had been

imposed with the said punishment. Even though the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner might have ended in acquittal, two of the

charges levelled against the petitioner were proved during the departmental proceedings. Since the petitioner was responsible for helping M.

Ramasamy, Manager, Co-optex Sales Centre, to misappropriate the funds, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in order.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the first two

charges had been proved, without any basis. However, he had held that the charges three and four had not been proved. When the criminal case

registered against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the charges arising out of the same set of facts

and circumstances. Since the fourth charge against the petitioner is almost the same as the first charge, it cannot be said that the first charge stands

proved. Similarly, if the third charge had not been proved, it cannot be held that the second charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved.

Further, when the power of issuing cheques and the disbursing of the amounts is in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Commissioner, the Accountant,

the Manager and the Junior Assistants, and when the petitioner does not have such a privilege, he cannot be held liable for the charges levelled

against him.

In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as on behalf of the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent,

dated 25.9.2000. Since two of the charges levelled against the petitioner were held as proved by the enquiry officer, who had conducted the

enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

From the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. Merely for the reason that the

criminal case registered against the petitioner had ended in acquittal, it cannot be said that the authorities concerned cannot conduct the

departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Further, the punishment of stoppage of increment of two years, with cumulative effect, imposed on

the petitioner, cannot be said to be disproportionate in nature. In such circumstances, the wit petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is

dismissed. No costs.