A. Ramaswamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer and The Tahsildar

K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned

Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents and perused the records.

The prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2007 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to allow the

petitioner to retire from service with effect from 28.02.2007 with all benefits.

By the impugned order dated 20.02.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension since an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated

and the petitioner was facing an investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Chennai. Further, an order under

FR 56(1)(c) was also passed retaining the petitioner in service until the charges against him were enquired and completed.

The petitioner was working as Village Administrative officer in Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted to work in

Thiruvannamalai District on administrative grounds. The petitioner has been working from September 2004 at Madurampattu village in

Thiruvannamalai District. During the tenure of the petitioner at Vellancode Village at Vilavancode Taluk in Kanyakumari District, complaints were

received by the Vigilance Department that the petitioner had amassed disproportionate assets and that required a further investigation. It is with a

view to facilitate such an enquiry, though the petitioner will have to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 28.02.2007, he was not allowed

to retire by invoking the power vested on the respondents under FR 56(1)(c).

Mr. Elanchezhiyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer

initially at Vellancode Village at Vilavancode Taluk in Kanyakumari District and subsequently, he was transferred outside the District by orders of

the Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer at Padmanabhapuram has no jurisdiction to pass the

impugned order as he is not under the service of the said officer, who is arrayed as the second respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

placed his argument on the basis of the Adhoc Rules framed for the post of Village Administrative Officer vide G.O. Ms. No. 2600 Revenue dated

18.11.1980. Rule No. 5 states that the appointing authority for the post shall be the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the

concerned village within his division.

The rule relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner only relates to appointing authority. Subsequent to the framing of Adhoc Rules, the

post of Village Administrative Officer has become a separate service and the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules will apply to

the Village Administrative Officers working in the State of Tamil Nadu and under the said Rule, there is no such criteria that the appointing

authority alone can take disciplinary action. The rules have prescribed disciplinary authority and appellate authority and in the present case, it is not

as if the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram is an inferior officer to that of a disciplinary authority. Inasmuch as the original place of

appointment of the petitioner is Vellancode Village at Vilavancode Taluk and even the present allegation of having amassed wealth

disproportionate to the known source of income had taken place only when the petitioner was discharging his duties at Vilavancode, this Court

does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order preventing the petitioner retiring from service.

Under these circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no

order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.