S. Murugavel vs District Revenue Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to Collector

M. Jaichandren, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 40767/97/A5, dated 17.09.2004, of the Personal Assistant (General) to Collector, Coimbatore, the second

respondent herein and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 73320/2004/A5, dated 24.01.2005, of the District Revenue Officer,

Coimbatore, the first respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service with all

attendant and consequential benefits.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered the service of Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in 1982 in the Taluk Office, Gudalur,

Nilgiris District. At the time of filing of the writ petition, he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, Udumalpet, in Coimbatore

District. He would be retiring on 28.02.2007, on reaching the age of superannuation . He has been maintaining an unblemished record of service in

his career spanning over 23 years. While so, the Sub-Collector, Pollachi, issued a charge memo, dated 19.04.2000, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil

Nadu Civil Service (C&A) Rules, framing four charges against him. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 28.08.2000, denying them and

by adducing material evidences to show that he had never indulged in any of the activities alleged against him. One of the charges relate to the

alleged illegal transportation of rice to Kerala and no specific details such as the name of the merchant , date, events, etc., were mentioned either in

the charges or imputation of the charges. Therefore, it was pointed that the charges were vague and ambiguous.

It is further stated by the petitioner that the Tahsildar (Distress Relief), Pollachi Taluk, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the

charges levelled against the petitioner. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report on 22.01.2001. In the enquiry report, it

was stated that there were four charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner had produced material and documentary evidence supporting

his case that he was not involved in the alleged activities. The first two charges were the main charges and the other two charges were only a

corollary of the main charges. In respect of the two charges, there were no details relating to the involvement or connection of the charge sheeted

employees and that there were no specific details available, hence there was no scope to enquire into the charges.

It is further stated that the enquiry report, dated 22.01.2001, was communicated to the petitioner and he had submitted a representation, on

02.05.2001, stating that since the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges were not proved, the petitioner had requested that the charges may be

dropped. However, the Personal Assistant (General) of the District Collector, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein, not being satisfied with

the findings of the said Enquiry Officer, had appointed the Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, as the new Enquiry Officer to proceed further with the enquiry

on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Again, the petitioner had appeared before the Enquiry Officer denying the charges. However, no

enquiry proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the second respondent himself had directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 21.06.2004.

Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the second respondent and denied all the charges. However, the second respondent had held that

there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and he had further held that the charges were proved based on his findings. Hence, the

second respondent herein had imposed on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, vide his

proceedings Na.Ka.No. 40767/97/A5, dated 17.09.2004. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the District Revenue

Officer, Coimbatore District, the first respondent herein, on 06.12.2004. The first respondent had issued a notice, dated 27.12.2004, directing the

petitioner to appear before him on 07.01.2005. Inspite of the petitioner submitting his explanation and pleading that he was not involved in the

illegal activities alleged against him, the first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 24.01.2005, held that the charges against the petitioner stood

proved and that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities violating the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules,

1973, and therefore, he was punishable for the charges, as found under Rule 17 (b) of the T.N.C.S(D&A) Rules and therefore, it was decided to

impose the punishment of ""Compulsory Retirement"" from service with effect from 31.01.2005. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed

challenging the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 17.09.2004, and the consequential order of the first respondent, dated 24.01.2005.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had pointed out that the charge sheet must be distinct and definite. Further, it was also

contended that vague and non-specified charges are not maintainable. Since the charges were vague and ambiguous the end punishment culminated

from the charges is invalid in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Once the initial action is illegal, the action that follows is also

illegal. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of Judicial

review and every action of an authority should be just, fair and reasonable based on the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings of

the respondents are arbitrary, illegal and void.

On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents pointed out that the charges levelled against the petitioner are

serious in nature and are in violation of the Government Servants Conduct Rules since the petitioner had acquired wealth and assets

disproportionate to the known source of his income. Therefore, the second respondent had ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner from

service by virtue of the powers vested in him under Rule 23(1) (c) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules.

It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had come before this Court without availing the

alternate remedies available to him by way of an appeal to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and a further appeal to the State

Government. He has also pointed out that there are also remedies of review and revision under the Act that can be invoked to challenge the

impugned orders and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

On a perusal of the documents field before this Court, it is found that the petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him and therefore, a

detailed enquiry had been conducted by the respondents, in which the petitioner had participated. Further, the petitioner could not show before this

Court that there were adequate materials to prove perversity, illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the procedures adopted by the respondents in

coming to the conclusion of finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Only in such cases, this Court will be permitted to interfere, especially,

where efficacious remedies are available, by way of appeal, review or revision before the concerned authorities. In the present case, it is found, as

pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that such remedies are available to the petitioner under the provisions of law. Therefore, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find ''sufficient cause'' to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents,

at this stage. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate authority or forum, as provided under

the law, to agitate his rights.

At this stage of the hearing, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he may be permitted to file an appeal as

provided for under law. On such submission being made, the petitioner is permitted to avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the

Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On such appeal being filed the same shall be disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks

thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.