AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.
1 Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 09.7.2002 made in O.A. No.2574 of 1998, the
Commissioner, Vellore Municipality, has filed the above Writ Petition.
The brief facts are : The second respondent, while working as Junior Assistant in the petitioner''s Municipality, was entrusted duty under the
Rojgar Yojana Scheme during the period commencing from 14.9.1995. During the said period, it was found that a sum of Rs.1,62,700/- was
misappropriated for the said Scheme and the second respondent, along with four others, were found to be responsible for the same. Though the
amount was collected from the loanees, the same was not deposited into the account of the Municipality. Twelve charges were framed against the
second respondent. The Enquiry Officer, based on the questions and answers, submitted the report. Accepting the report, an order was passed on
21.01.1998 removing the second respondent from service. The said order was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.
No.2574 of 1998. By the impugned order dated 09.7.2002, the Tribunal, after finding that there was no proper enquiry and taking note of the age
of the applicant at that time, viz., 53 years, passed an order reinstating him into service and further directed that the period of absence shall be
treated as duty period with service benefits, but he shall be paid only 50% of the salary and allowance for the said period. To this extent, the
Tribunal disposed of the Original Application. Not satisfied with the order, the Municipality has filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and learned Government
Advocate for the third respondent.
We have gone through the charge memo dated 29.9.1995. No doubt, as many as twelve charges have been framed against the second
respondent. It is seen that though the second respondent denied those charges, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, based on the
questions and answers, submitted a report, which was accepted by the original authority, which culminated by an order of dismissal.
Learned counsel for the second respondent has brought to our notice that the procedure provided under Rule 8 Sub-rule (2) of the Tamil Nadu
Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970 has not been followed in this case.
A perusal of Sub-rule (2) of the above Rules makes it clear that an elaborate procedure has been provided. As rightly pointed out by the
Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer has not followed the procedure as prescribed in the Rules. We are satisfied that in such circumstance, the Tribunal is
fully justified in finding that there was no proper enquiry in terms of the Rules and accordingly, is right in setting aside the order of the original
authority. No doubt, as pointed out by the Tribunal, the proper course is to remit the matter to the Municipality for fresh enquiry. However, taking
note of the fact that the charges relate to certain commissions and omissions, which have taken place in 1993 and the main allegation against the
applicant/ second respondent is failure to supervise the persons concerned in charge of the accounts/money, the Tribunal passed an order
foregoing 50% of his salary for the period of absence. Considering all these aspects, we are of the view that at this juncture, it would not be
desirable to permit the Municipality to conduct fresh enquiry. It is also brought to our notice that the second respondent is going to be
superannuated within a period of one month.
In the light of the above factual position and in view of the fact that there is a clear procedural flaw in conducting the enquiry, we are in
agreement with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. There is no ground for interference. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No
costs.