JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.— Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent and quashing the memo of charges communicated to the respondent.

3. The respondent Radha Krishna Moorthy was working as the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Madras (Central) during the period 20-6-1984 to 20-3-1985. In September 1985 he was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner. Sometime in the first half of 1989, a Special Audit Wing of the Transport Department detected and reported misappropriation of a large amount of Government money in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Madras (Central) during the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. On the basis of the said report a memo of charges dated 4-6-1989 was communicated to the respondent.

4. The memo of charges first sets out the amounts misappropriated under various heads in the said office during the aforesaid years, and then follow paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which read as follows:

"4. During the above period, you Thiru. A. Radhakrishnamoorthy were performing the duties and responsibilities in the above office as Additional Regional Transport Officer. Your duties included money transactions and ensuing that accounts were prepared correctly and preserved for production before the audit party whenever necessary. You have failed in your duties. Consequently embezzlement has occurred resulting in loss of revenue to Government to the tune of Rs 5,54,124 in the year 1983-84. Thus you have committed grave offence. The following charges are therefore framed against you under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

(i) That you indulged along with eight other officials referred to above in the act of misappropriation of Government funds by falsification of accounts by indicating false amounts of fees in the triplicate copies of cash receipts which were lesser than the amounts which were actually collected from the public and noted in the duplicate copies of cash receipts received along with the respective applications to make it appear that only appropriate permit fees due to Government were collected. You with the connivance of other officials with the mala fide intention of cheating the Government have thus misappropriated Government money.

(ii) That by the fraudulent removal of cash receipt books and cash books from the premises of Regional Transport Officer, Madras (Central) and also by your intentional failure in arranging to produce the relevant accounts before the officials from unearthing proof of further misappropriation of Government money.

(iii) And that you and other officials are responsible for pecuniary loss caused to the State Government by above acts of misappropriation and are thus liable for recovery of the amounts i.e. Rs 5,54,124 in the year 1983-84 and Rs 5,21,914 in the year 1984-85.

5. You are hereby directed to submit your written statement of defence to this charge memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo of charge. You are also informed that if no written reply is received, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and further action will be proceeded with, on merits.

6. The prescribed questionnaire form is enclosed and you are directed to furnish replies to the same indicating specifically whether you desire an oral enquiry or wish to be heard in person or both."

5. Though the enquiry commenced into the said charges it was not concluded by the year 1992, in which year the respondent approached the Tribunal for quashing the charges. Three grounds were urged by the respondent in support of his prayer aforesaid:

(1) that the charges communicated are vague and are not elucidated by the statement of particulars or in any other manner;

(2) the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by an authority lower than the appointing authority of the respondent and,