JUDGMENT

S. MOHAN, J.:

1. Leave granted

2. The facts leading to present appeal are as under

The respondent joined the Co-operative Department as Deputy Registrar in the year 1969. He was promoted as Joint Registrar in 1981. He became the Joint Registrar/Special Officer of the Park Town Co-operative Whole-Sale Stores Ltd. in 1984.

3. During his tenure as the Joint Registrar/Special Officer of Park Town Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Ltd., complaints were received by the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department. The said Department approached the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to furnish the details to investigate into the alleged irregularities. Thereupon, the Registrar furnished the relevant material The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was requested to complete the enquiry on or before 31.12.1987. However, no progress was made in that direction.

4. The Government of Tamil Nadu by its G.O. Ms. No.185 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 17.3.1988 amended Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Under the said G.O., the powers imposing minor penalty came to be conferred on the Heads of the Departments.

5 Finally, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption department submitted its detailed report. On an examination of the same, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.371 dated 20.12.1988 directing the Registrar to take disciplinary action against the respondent. Thereupon the Registrar issued the charge memo dated 20.3.1989. The Registrar (Marketing, Planning and Development) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The respondent appeared before the Enquiry Officer from 24.1.1990 to 20.3.1990. He also cross-examined one witness.

6. On 20.3.1990, he made a representation to the appellant alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer. The complaint was rejected Again, another representation to the same effect was made. That was also rejected on 8.5.1990 and the Registrar called upon the respondent the appear before the Enquiry Officer. At this stage the respondent moved an appreciation O.A.No.1294 of 1990 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the order dated 8.5.1990 calling him by the Registrar to appear before the Enquiry Officer.

7. By the impugned order dated 19.3.1991 the Tribunal held that the proceedings under Rule 17(b) were liable to be set aside on the ground that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was not empowered to impose even minor penalty. However it was open to the Government as Disciplinary Authority to indicate freash action by issuing a charge Demo and conclude the proceedings within a period of six months. Aggrieved by this order the present civil appeal has come to be preferred.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Tribunal has completely ignored G.O. Ms 185 date 17.3.1988 by which the Government had delegated the power to the heads of the Departments to impose minor penalties.

9. Besides by G.O. Ms. 371 date 10.12.1988 the Government directed the registrar to frame charges against the respondent and to initiate enquiry. Without regard to this G.O. the Tribunal has held as though Registrar on his own under Rule 17(b) had issued a charge memo or which there was no power.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if the Disciplinary Authority is the Government the Registrar is not competent to frame charges and direct enquiry proceedings.

11. We will no proceed to consider whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is correct. The finding of the Tribunal is as follows:

"The joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a state service officer and the disciplinary authority is the State Government. Therefore proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the T.N.C.S. (CA) Rules can be initiated only by the persons empowered to impose the penalties specified in that rule. The rules also contain a provision that n authority competent to impose the penalties mentioned in Rules 17(a) may institute a disc