AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the newly impleaded third Respondent.
The Petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 07.09.1966. He was dismissed from service by the first Respondent by an order dated
05.06.2000, based on G.O.Ms. No. 1046, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department, dated 13.11.1987. As per the said
order, the Petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 17.07.1997, for more than two years, without sanction of leave. In such circumstances, the
first Respondent removed the Petitioner from service without holding an enquiry, by invoking G.O.Ms. No. 1046.
It is admitted that the G.O.Ms. No. 1046 provides that removal is the only punishment for unauthorized absence. The G.O. was set-aside by
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in a batch of Original Applications in O.A. No. 1120 of 1989, on 21.10.1999. In all those cases,
termination was based on G.O.Ms. No. 1046. The termination orders were quashed and the concerned authorities were directed to proceed
under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The Government also implemented the order of the Tribunal and issued
G.O.Ms. No. 153, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 08.08.2000. Hence, the impugned orders in those Original
Applications were set-aside and liberty was given to take departmental action for the unauthorized absence of the Petitioners therein.
In this case, while admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim order of stay of the impugned order.
The Respondents filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 6890 of 2001 against the interim order of the Tribunal, before this Court. This Court
disposed the writ petition on 22.08.2006 recording the statement of the learned Additional Government Pleader. Para 4 of the order dated
22.08.2006 of this Court is extracted here-under:
Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the first Respondent was allowed to retire without prejudice
to the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the writ petition is dismissed.
However, it it is open to the Petitioners/Government to approach the Administrative Tribunal for disposal of the Original Application.
As per the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Petitioner was allowed to retire from service, as he reached the age of
superannuation, without prejudice to outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. This is nothing but in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 153, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (F.R.III) Department, dated 08.08.2000. Now, the Petitioner is aged about 65 years and the terminal benefits of the
Petitioner has not yet been settled, as the departmental proceeding is not completed.
Under such circumstances, suffice it to direct the third Respondent to complete the enquiry and pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings,
within a period of five months from today.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.