ORDER
K. Suguna, J.
1. Initially the petitioner has filed O.A. No. 230 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders of the first respondent dated 7-02-95 and also 18-09-97 whereby charges have been framed and punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect has been imposed. The same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 32847 of 2005.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that from 4.7.84 to 18.10.94 the petitioner was working as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the Bannari Check-Post. During his tenure at Bannari Check-Post a charge-memo dated 07-02-95 has been issued. The following charges have been framed against the petitioner.
1. “That Thiru V.Magendran, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer as Check-post Officer, Bannari Check-post has failed to stop 60 vehicles which moved from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka State and passed through the Bannari Check-post and Punjanur Check-post at Tamil Nadu Karnataka Border and similarly 9 vehicles came from other states and passed through the Punjanur Check-post in Karnataka State and Bannari Check-post and make entries in the Movement Register of the Bannari Checkpost even though the details of these vehicle good, and value of the goods were recorded in the Movement Register of the Punjanur Check-post. The details of the vehicles which were recorded in the Register of Punjanur Check-post and not entered in the Movement Register of the Bannari Check-post are mentioned in the Annexure enclosed”.
2.”That he has failed to collect the documents from the drivers of the vehicle referred to in Charge No. 1 and record the movement of those vehicles which carried taxable commodities worth of Rs. 25,34,029(in coming) and Rs. 31,21,159 (Outing) thereby indirectly helped the dealers in the various parts of the State more particularly in Coimbatore, Erode, Tiruchy and Salem areas to evade tax to large extent.
3. “That he has not performed the duties of the Check-post Officer in-charge of Bannari Check-post during his period of charge with utmost devotion and integrity to duty, and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules ’73”.
3. For the aforesaid charges enquiry was conducted on 13.11.1996 and final order has been passed on 18.9.97 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as far as the above 3 charges are concerned charges 2 and 3 are consequential of charge of 1. The gist of the charge is that the entries of certain vehicles have been made in the register of Punjanur Check-post and the entries with regard to those vehicles had not been made in the register of Bannari Check-post. Consequently, there was evasion of tax to the tune of Rs. 25,34,029/- and basing on these allegations, violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules ’73 was levelled against the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted for this allegation the petitioner and some other officers have been placed under suspension in the year 1984 and the same was challenged in O.A.Nos. 5210 to 5217 of 1994 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the O.As. were disposed of by an order dated 25.11.94 with a specific direction which is as follows:
The location of the check-post prima facie cannot appears to be the most suitable. The proper location should be near the State Borders beyond any junction of any minor roads with the Highway on which the Check-post is located. The location would appear to have been decided with reference to the convenience of the staff rather than the needs of the department and such location has given room for possibly genuine evasion as well as an excuse which cannot be dismissed straight away, that vehicles have taken diversion without passing the Check-post. The department should review the location in the light of the circumstances in this case.
6. Basing on the above said direction, a report was called for with regard to the availability of diversion route between Punjanur Check-post and Bannari Check-post. After going through the entire matter, The Special Commissioner (CT)(ENF) has submitted his report on 14.3.95. As per the said report also the Bannari Check-post have been functioning with effect from 5.5.64 and the said check-post is located at the foot hills of the western ghats. That apart as per the said report the vehicle coming from Samrajnagar, Karnataka State has to pass through the Pulingoor Check-post of Karnataka State, then Hasanoor and Thimmam in Tamil Nadu before reaching Bannari Check-post. As per the said report though the Check-post at Hasanoor, Germalam and Thalavadi were formed with effect from 21.2.70. These Check-posts were disbanded with effect from 20.2.82. The vehicles which has passed through the Punjanur Check-post need not pass through Bannari Check-post since, they had diversion route. Because of this availability of these additional diversion route alone the vehicle which had been passed through the Punjanur Check-post had not been passed through the Bannari Check-post. Consequentially, there was a tax evasion by them.
7. Basing on the report, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation levelled in the charge-memo is not sustainable. since, because of the availability of the diversion route, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the evasion of tax payment by the certain vehicles which had passed through Punjanur Check-post but not Bannari Check-post.
8. That apart the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry, he has simply admitted that there are three diversion routes and also he specifically mentioned there is no clinching evidence that all the vehicles have definitely passed through the Bannari Check-post. After giving this finding the enquiry officer without assigning any reason has held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. That apart according to the enquiry officer report, the roaming squad should have been found out the tax evasion by the movement of the vehicle through the diversion route. As far as roaming squad is concerned the petitioner who is Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Bannari Check-post is not responsible for any lapses on the part of the roaming squad. Even from that angle, responsibility cannot be fixed on the petitioner for the alleged lapses.
9. As per the allegation levelled, the petitioner who was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer at Bannari Check-post has failed to stop 60 vehicles which moved from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka State and passed through the Bannari check-post and Punjanur check-post at Tamil Nadu-Karnataka Border and similarly 9 vehicles which came from other States and passed through the Punjanur check-post in Karnataka State and Bannari check-post and make entries in the movement register of the Bannari check-post. Eventhough the details of these vehicles and value of the goods were recorded in the movement register of the Punjanur check-post and the details of the vehicles which were recorded in the register of the Punjanur check-post not entered into the movement register of the Bannari check-post is the gist of the allegation levelled against the petitioner under charge No. 1. Even as per the findings of the enquiry officer also, there is no clinching evidence to show that all vehicles have definitely passed through the Bannari Check-post. As such, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when diversion routes were available, the question of all vehicles passing through the Bannari Check-post which have crossed through Punjanur Check-post does not arise at all. That apart, when there is a specific submission that because of the disbanding of the three Check-posts between Punjanur and Bannari check-posts, diversion routes were available, consequentially, there is every possibility for the vehicles not to cross Bannari Check-post. Though the enquiry officer has given a finding that charges 2 and 3 are proved, there is no discussion about how the charges are held proved. Without giving any reason, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges have been held proved and that apart, even as per the counter filed by the Department as well as the report submitted, diversion routes are available. As such, there is every possibility for the vehicles which are passing through the Punjanur check-post to avoid the Bannari check-post. Hence, the allegation that all the entries made in the movement register of Punjanur check-post not made in the movement register of Bannari check-post does not arise and for the consequential tax evasion of the vehicles which did not pass through the Bannari check-post, the petitioner cannot be held liable. Hence, the punishment imposed basing on the allegation cannot be allowed to stand, as such, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Basing on the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was deprived of promotion and also other benefits. Since, in view of the order passed in the above writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to have all other benefits which he has been deprived of basing on the impugned order alone.