Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. 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"."
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Index:Yes/No 04-08-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh To Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai-9.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh Writ Petition No.2336 of 2007 04-08-2009