T. Ramachandran vs The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, The Government of Tamil Nadu and The Treasury Officer, Huzur Treasury

P.K. Misra, J.—Counsel for the petitioner is absent. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and

perused the order passed by the Tribunal as well as all connected documents.

The present petitioner had filed O.A. No. 4145 of 1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal for quashing the Memo in R.C. No.

55573/EG2/99 dated 6.7.1999 issued by the third respondent, viz., the Director Industries and Commerce. The said memo had been issued to the

present petitioner under the following circumstances: The petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce as Manager

(Materials), District Industries Centre, Nagapattinam. He had come on transfer from Trichy to Nagapattinam and according to him, a balance pay

advance of Rs. 5660/- was payable to him as per rules. The said amount was sanctioned by the General Manager, District Industries Centre,

Trichy on 8.4.1999 and the Assistant Director of Electronic Industrial Estate, Trichy -15 was directed to claim the bill, so that the amount could be

paid to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the bill was prepared and presented at Huzur Treasury, Trichy. The petitioner, who required the money

urgently made enquiry regarding the bill in the relevant section of the treasury and he was informed that ''pass order'' was put up on the bill and sent

to the Assistant Treasury Officer for approval. At that stage, the petitioner requested the Assistant Treasury Officer to pass the bill. The petitioner

claims that the Assistant Treasury Officer demanded Rs. 100/- for passing the bill which the petitioner had refused. Subsequently the bill was

returned on the basis of some imaginary queries. The petitioner made a complaint before the District Collector narrating the aforesaid allegations

and requested the Collector to enquire into the matter. Subsequently after about three months, the present impugned memo dated 6.7.1999 came

to be served on the petitioner. In the said Memo, it was indicated that an enquiry had been made by the Treasury Officer regarding the allegations

made by the present petitioner and such allegations were found to be false and baseless and thereafter the present petitioner was ""directed to

explain within 10 days from the date of receipt of this memo as to why he has made false and baseless allegations against the Assistant Treasury

Officer, Huzur Treasury, Trichy. If his explanation is not received within the stipulated time, it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer

and further action will be pursued as per rules"".

At that stage, the present petitioner approached the Tribunal with a prayer to quash such memo. Such Original Application, which was filed in

the year 1999 remained pending before the Tribunal and was decided on 29.08.2001. The Original Application was dismissed mainly on the

ground that merely a show cause notice had been issued and such notice was not vitiated by any illegality or impropriety.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the aforesaid order of the Tribunal as well as issuance of Memo stating that

since false allegations had been made by the present petitioner, a notice was served on him to show cause and the petitioner instead of rushing to

the Tribunal should have replied and participated in the enquiry.

Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent and having gone through the materials on record, we do not think this is a fit case where

such enquiry should be allowed to continue. Even assuming that the allegations made by the petitioner against the Assistant Treasury Officer were

found to be baseless, the Authorities should have allowed the matter to rest at that stage without proceeding further in the matter. Ordinarily a

person, who makes a grievance regarding some alleged demand for payment of bribe is a person having sense of grievance and even after such

allegation is found untrue, if any action is taken against such complainant, misery of such person is compounded further. Apart from the above

aspect, we find that the matter is related to some alleged incident in the year 1999 and more than five years have elapsed in the meantime, it would

not be in the interest of administration to wake up such old matters. Having regard to all these special features, we feel, the interest of justice would

be served by quashing the show cause notice dated 6.7.1999.

The Writ petition is accordingly allowed. W.P.M.P. No. 35351 of 2001 is closed. No order as to costs.