Heard Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Aravindan, learned panel advocate for the respondents.
2.The petitioner, who was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in the year 1986, is before this Court challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent.
3.We have carefully perused the order passed by the second respondent dated 25.06.2007. The said order came to be passed pursuant to a charge memo, which was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Charge No.1 relates non payment of various sums of money to the electricity board. Charge No.2 relates to temporary misappropriation of government funds on account of belated remittance into the proper bank account. Charge No.3 pertains to tampering of government records by making false entries in the office records. Charge No.4 pertains to improper maintenance of government records and failure to follow the instructions as stated in the Criminal Rules of Practice and circulars in the matter of disbursements of amount, compensation amounts and other amounts to the parties/advocates. The petitioner on receipt of the charge memo submitted his written sub missions of defence admitting the charges, stating that he does not want oral enquiry. In spite of such a stand taken by the petitioner, considering the seriousness of the charges, the Principal District Judge, appointed the Special District and Sessions Judge for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai as Enquiry Officer, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.09.2005 holding that the charges are proved as the petitioner had admitted all the charges before the Enquiry Officer. In the Domestic enquiry, four witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and Exs.1 to 5 were marked. The petitioner did not cross examine those witnesses and no witness was examined on his side. In the additional statement of defence dated 25.10.2005, the petitioner has stated about under what circumstances, he had committed the delinquency and requested that he may be let of with warning or altering the charges by imposing minor penalty.
4.The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire material facts, report of the enquiry officer, the evidence produced before the domestic enquiry and overall facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. As against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the first respondent, after reconsidering the entire matter, by assigning independent reasons, dismissed the appeal. The first respondent noted that the petitioner was guilty of financial misappropriating of government funds and falsification of records and in 66 cases, the petitioner has effected payments to persons without any identification. Thus, we find that there is no error in the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. The order of dismissal from service is a speaking order after consideration of all the facts and circumstances and the order passed by the appellate authority is also a speaking order by independently considering all the issues and in the absence of any error in the decision making process, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service, which cannot be stated to be disproportionate considering the gravity of the charges.
5.For all the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. NO costs.
To:
1.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, High Court Buildings, Madras ? 600 104.
2.The Principal District Judge, Theni District, Theni, Tamil Nadu..