IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.NOS.34031 and 34020 OF 2006 1.S.Dakshinamoorthy .. Petitioner in both Wps. Vs. 1.The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai-108. 2.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents
in both Wps.
Prayer in both Writ petitions: Original Application Nos.8664 and 8669 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.06.1998 issued in the Ref.Nos.Na.Ka.No.29714/94/aa1 and 21441/95/aa1 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to disburse all the retirements benefits to the applicant. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Government Advocate C O M M O N O R D E R
Original Application Nos.8664 and 8669 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 17.06.1998 issued in the Ref.Nos.Na.Ka.No.29714/94/aa1 and 21441/95/aa1 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to disburse all the retirements benefits to the applicant. Since the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition.
2.The petitioner while working as Executive Officer, Special Grade, Town Panchayat was placed under suspension for certain charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the charge memo was issued by the first respondent and proceedings were conducted by the respondent Department holding that the charges were held to be proved. Thereafter, a punishment of removal from service was imposed. The petitioner was suspended and he was not permitted to retire from service and his terminal benefits were not paid. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 1998 and the matter is pending before this Court. In the writ petitions, the charge memo and the report of the Enquiry Officer and findings of the disciplinary authority are under challenge stating that the dismissal is bad. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the Enquiry Officer has gone into several factual aspects of the case to prove the delinquency charged. The disciplinary authority has given a detailed findings on the charges. A provision for appeal has been provided in the impugned proceedings itself. The remedy of appeal has not been exhausted. As prayed for the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal. The appeal need not be rejected on the ground of limitation as the petitioner has sincerely pursued the matter before the tribunal and also before this Court. The larger relief as sought for cannot be granted.
3.The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal to the Government challenging the impugned order. Such appeal if filed, should be disposed of on its own merits within reasonable time preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the appeal. The writ petition is ordered as above. No costs.
vsm
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai-108.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Adminstration & Water Supply
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 9