E. Indira vs The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was formerly working as Sub-Registrar at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur, Chennai. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, along with a team of Officers made a surprise raid at the office of the Sub Registrar, Ambatur on 27.09.2006. At that time, a sum of Rs.74,580/-, which was found in the corner of the office, in between the heap of card board boxes was recovered. Based on the same, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after completing the said raid, submitted a report. Since there was no explanation offered by any of the employee working in the office, in respect of the said amount, based on the said report, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and other employees.

So far as the petitioner is concerned, as many as four charges were framed. The petitioner denied all the four charges. The Commissioner for disciplinary proceedings on completing the enquiry, had found that the charges 1,2 and 4 were not proved and charge No.3 alone was proved. Charge No.3 reads as follows:- Charge No.3:- You (Aos 1 to 3) could not satisfactorily account for an unaccounted cash of Rs.74,850/- which has been recovered from your (Aos 1 to 3) office premises.

During the enquiry proceeding, before the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, one Mr.Krishnakumar was examined as P.W.5. He has stated that the said amount of Rs.74,580/- belonged to him. He had further stated that he had brought the said amount to the office to pay towards his housing loan. But this explanation was not acceptable. The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, while disbelieving the evidence of P.W.5 and his claim made, held that the petitioner and the other two accused/Officers are responsible for the said amount and accordingly held that the charge No.3 was proved.

The petitioner, however, denied the above charge. According to her, she was not aware of the said amount and she had no knowledge that the money was kept in the office premises. She did not claim the amount also. Based on the said report and on accepting the same, the Government issued G.O(D).330 Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department dated 20.10.2011, imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect on the petitioner.

Challenging the said Government Order, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Government on 30.11.2011. On considering the same, the Government issued G.O(D).30 Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department dated 09.01.2013, rejecting the said revision. Challenging the said Government Orders, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

Similarly, One S.Gurumoorthy, who was formerly working as an Assistant was also punished in G.O(D) No.691 Commercial Tax and Registration (H) Department, dated 20.12.2013. Challenging the same, the said Gurumoorthy filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4339 of 2014. By an order dated 13.06.2014, this Court set aside the said Government Order dated 20.12.2013 holding that the charge against him had not been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner also stands in the same footing.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the judgment dated 13.06.2014 made in W.P.No.4339 of 2014 and also the connected records.

From the records, it is crystal clear that the petitioner and the said S.Gurumoorthy stand in the same footing. This Court has already found that for the money, which was kept elsewhere in the office, Mr.S.Gurumoorthy cannot be held responsible, because, there was no evidence at all to show that Mr.Gurumoorthy had either knowledge or that it was kept on his direction. Thus, on this conclusion, the punishment imposed on Gurumoorthy was set aside by this Court. Similarly, so far as the petitioner is concerned, absolutely, there is no evidence available that the said amount was kept in the office premises either with the knowledge of the petitioner or on her direction. When that be so, at no stretch of imagination, it can be concluded that the petitioner was responsible for the said amount. Thus, in my considered opinion, the finding given by the Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings that the petitioner is guilty of third charge is absolutely baseless. The finding has been given without there being any evidence, which is legally acceptable.

In such view of the matter, the impugned Government Order, which is based on the said report of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled for consequential promotion and other benefits on par with her immediate junior. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.