IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:14.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.38426 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6988 of 1999) M.Dhanaraj ... Petitioner Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District. ... Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.6988 of 1999 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.A1/5685/98 dated 22.10.99 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner :Mr.P.Rajendran For Respondent :Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP ORDER
The petitioner, M.Dhanaraj, has filed the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent on 22.10.99.
2. The petitioner, while serving as Village Administrative Officer, Ketty-III Village of Coonoor Taluk, alleged to have misappropriated Government money collected during the month of April, 1998. The petitioner collected the land revenue tax amount of Rs.980/- on 21.04.98 and even after obtaining the signature of the Revenue Inspector, Ketty and Deputy Tahsildar of Taluk Office, Coonoor on 30.04.98 for remitting the said money into the Government account, he did not remit the said amount. Even in the year 1991, the petitioner had committed the same offence of misappropriation, for which, he was placed under suspension as per the proceedings Rc.A1.No.7168/90, dated 27.09.91 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor. Subsequently, in the said case also charges were framed against him vide Revenue Divisional Officer’s Proceedings A1.No.7168/90, dated 24.10.91 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. After proper enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service on 09.06.92. On appeal made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order for reinstatement on 28.11.97 after considering the family circumstances on compassionate ground. Therefore, by taking into account the antecedent of the petitioner, a charge memo was issued in Rc.A1.No.5685/98, dated 24.09.98 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, by asking him to give his explanation. After submitting his explanation, not being satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority, by rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings Rc.A1.5685/98, dated 03.12.98 and consequent to the above said proceedings, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his enquiry report on 12.01.99 holding that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry officer’s report was served on the petitioner and he was also served with a second show cause notice to submit his explanation. The petitioner also submitted his second explanation and the disciplinary authority, being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, by considering the findings of the enquiry officer and also by taking into account his earlier misappropriation and subsequent reinstatement, thought it fit to pass an order of dismissal from service under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the illness occasioned to the petitioner, he was not able to immediately remit the amount of Rs.980/-. However, after getting the signature from the Revenue Inspector as well as Deputy Tahsildar, the amount of Rs.980/- was remitted on 14.07.98. Further, for the reason that there was a delay for remittance of the amount, proceedings were initiated again him. Subsequently, though the petitioner was able to submit his explanation saying that he was unable to remit the above said amount in view of his long illness, the enquiry officer disagreed with the explanation offered by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, accepting the report submitted by the enquiry officer, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from the service of the respondent. In his further submission, it was argued that the impugned order of dismissal from service is not commensurate with the proved charges. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dismissed from the service and on that basis, prayed for setting aside the above order of dismissal from service.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the present writ petition is not sustainable both on facts as well as on law, for the simple reason that the petitioner has not committed this offence for the first time. Even in the year 1991 itself, the petitioner committed the same offence of misappropriating government money, which was collected towards land revenue. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the charges were found proved against the petitioner and on that basis , he was removed from the service. On his appeal, the above said order of dismissal from service was cancelled and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 28.11.97 after considering his family circumstances. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was given one more opportunity by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner had committed the same mistake by once again misappropriating government money collected towards land revenue. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the same compassionate treatment as already given to him in the year 1991 and on that basis, prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner, while serving as Village Administrative Officer, was placed under suspension for having misappropriated the government money, which was collected towards land revenue. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 and the charges were also found proved against the petitioner. In another instance, even in the year 1991, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, after going through the findings of the enquiry officer in an earlier disciplinary proceedings, passed an order of dismissal from service on 09.06.92. Aggrieved by the said order, when an appeal was filed, the Revenue Divisional Officer, while considering his family circumstances, the petitioner was given a last opportunity by way of reinstatement, but, unfortunately, the petitioner had not made use of the compassionate treatment extended to him. Forgetting the fact that the petitioner was absorbed by way of reinstatement by cancelling the earlier order of removal, the petitioner had committed the same mistake of misappropriation of Rs.980/-, which was collected towards land revenue. Therefore, the petitioner was subjected to face disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 and finally, charges were also found proved by the enquiry officer. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, the present impugned order of dismissal from service was imposed against the petitioner. Since the charge no.2 specifically says that the petitioner in the earlier occasion also had committed the same offence by misappropriating the government money, the petitioner has been rightly punished with the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 to consider the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.
Index : Yes 14.06.2010 Internet:Yes rkm To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District. T.RAJA,J. Rkm W.P.No.38426/2006 14.06.2010