District Collector vs P. Rani Ammal and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 10.7.2002 made in O.A. No. 7303

of 2001, the District Collector, Thiruvallur has filed above Writ Petition. According to the petitioner/District Collector, since there were lot of

complaints regarding the maintenance of Old Age Pension, Accident Relief Scheme and Distress Relief Scheme in the Old Age Pension Branch of

the Taluk Office at Ambattur, Thiruvallur District, a surprise check was made in the Old Age Pension Branch in the Taluk Office, Ambattur and it

was brought to the notice that none of the registers prescribed for Old Age Pension had been maintained and several other lapses, including

misappropriation of money relating to returned Money Orders, were also noticed. The Tashildar, Ambattur submitted a report about the prevailing

condition of the Old Age Pension Branch in the Taluk Office at Ambattur. The first respondent herein, who was working as Assistant in the Old

Age Pension Branch during the period from 14.5.1997 to 3.3.19 99, was found responsible for such lapses and hence, disciplinary action under

Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules was contemplated against her. A charge memo was served on the first respondent by

the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur dated 31.10.1 999. The first respondent was directed to submit her explanation in pursuance of the

aforesaid charge memo. The first respondent offered her explanation on 29.12.1999. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri was appointed as

the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges as laid down under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. The Enquiry Officer submitted a

report holding all the charges as proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was duly communicated to the first respondent on 25.8.2000 and she

has also acknowledged it. The first respondent, in her letter dated 26.9.2000, has stated that the explanation already offered by her may be taken

as final and she requested passing of a final order. Subsequently, she was directed to appear for a personal enquiry. The first respondent appeared

before the District Collector, Thiruvallur for personal hearing; she admitted her guilt in her letter dated 9.11.2000 and requested to exonerate her

from the charges. Final orders were passed by the Petitioner/District Collector on 30.9.2001, downgrading her from the rank of Assistant to Junior

Assistant for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.

No.7303 of 2001 to quash the order of punishment issued against her. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 10.7.2002, set aside the order

of punishment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner/District Collector has filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent.

After taking us through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and all other connected materials, the learned Government Advocate would

submit that the order of the Tribunal setting aside the punishment imposed on the applicant/first respondent only on the ground that she was not

furnished with the enquiry report and that she was not afforded an opportunity to submit her explanation to the enquiry report cannot be sustained

since the applicant/first respondent was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and she was asked to submit her explanation, if any. Learned

Government Advocate also brought to our notice that on receipt of the copy of the enquiry report, the applicant/first respondent sent a reply to the

District Revenue Officer stating that she had no further explanation to offer and requested that her earlier explanation may be considered and

orders passed at an early date. According to the learned Government Advocate, in the light of the fact that the applicant/first respondent was

furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and no fresh explanation was offered thereon, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal cannot

be sustained. In support of the above contention, the learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice a letter from the office of the District

Collector, Thiruvallur in Na.Ka.No. 20332/99/A2 dated 25.8.2000 which reads as under :

VERNACULAR PORTION OMITTED

On receipt of the above letter, the applicant/first respondent sent the following reply to the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur :

VERNACULAR PORTION OMITTED"".

The above mentioned communications amply show that after the enquiry, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the applicant/ first

respondent and she was asked to submit her further explanation, if any. The proceedings also show that the applicant/first respondent had not

furnished an additional explanation based on the report of the enquiry officer. The above mentioned proceedings are available at pages 15 and 16

of the typed set filed along with the writ petition. The above factual details were furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. On

going through the same, we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the applicant/first respondent was not furnished

with a copy of the enquiry report and that she was not afforded an opportunity to submit her explanation to the same. Only on the said

misconception, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment and allowed the Original Application. For the reasons mentioned above, the said

conclusion and the ultimate direction cannot be sustained.

Inasmuch as the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is not functional as on date, we intend to go into the merits of the order passed by the

District Collector dated 30.9.2001.

We have gone through the five charges levelled against the first respondent, her explanation to the charges, the enquiry proceedings and the

ultimate order passed by the District Collector imposing the punishment, viz. reverting her to the post of Junior Assistant for a period of two years

with a monetory loss thereon. Mr. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that consequent to the order

passed by the District Collector, the first respondent was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant and the two year period expired even on

8.11.2003 and hence, according to the learned senior counsel, even if the order of the Tribunal is set aside, there is no need for the first respondent

to undergo the punishment as imposed by the District Collector. In support of the above contention, the first respondent has also filed W.P.M.P.

No. 1954 of 200 4 seeking a direction to the District Collector, Thiruvallur to give posting order posting orders to the first respondent as Assistant

with effect from 9.11.2003. On going through the assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application and in the light of the

statement made by the learned senior counsel, we intend to issue directions to the District Collector, Thiruvallur as prayed for by the first

respondent in the said W.P.M.P.

In the light of what is stated above,

(a) the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 10.7.2 002 made in O.A. No.7303 of 2001 is hereby set aside;

(b) The order of the District Collector, Thiruvallur dated 30.9.2001 is hereby confirmed;

(c) the District Collector, Thiruvallur is hereby directed to give posting orders to the first respondent, viz. P. Raniammal as Assistant with effect

from 9.11.2003, if she is otherwise qualified, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.