Action taken by judicial authority should not form the bases for disciplinary action.

(Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i) for issuance a writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to order dated 10-8-2001 in Original Application No.6284 of 97, on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai/2nd respondent herein and to quash the same; and (ii) for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for records pertaining to order dated 10/8/2001, in Original Application No.6277 of 1997 on the file of same Tribunal, and to quash the same.)

COMMON ORDER

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 10-8-2001, made in O.A.Nos.6277 and 6284 of 1997; Commercial Taxes Department and the Government have filed the above writ petitions.

2. One N. Sivasamy, applicant before the Tribunal and first respondent herein filed O.A.No.6277/97 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the order of suspension made in G.O. (D) No.319 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 29-07-97 and the connected order in G.O (D) No.320 of the same Department dated 29-07-97 as well as for direction to the department to treat the applicant as having retired from service on 31-07-1997 with all service benefits. In O.A.No.6284/97, the very same applicant sought for quashing the charge memo dated 15-7-97 served on him on 23-7-97. For convenience, we shall refer the charges as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the applicant is that he was serving as Commercial Tax Officer in the year 1992. He was to retire on 31-7-1997. Just 15 days prior to the date of his retirement, a charge memo dated 15-7-97 was served on him on 23-7-97. The charge is that during the period from 2-3-94 to 2-6-95, there were some defects in the exercise of his quasi-judicial power as assessing authority. On 31-7-1997, he was served with an order of suspension and on the same day, he was served with another order retaining him in service. Questioning the suspension order as well as charge memo, the applicant has filed the above said applications.

4. It is the case of the Commercial Tax Department that as the charges against the applicant are grave, he was placed under suspension. He was also not allowed to retire. It is not improper as it is contended. Suspension has been ordered as charges were framed under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and enquiry was pending. The order of retention was served as per instructions issued in Fundamental Rule 56(1) (c). Although the order was issued on 15-7-1997, it could be served only on 31-7-97 on the applicant. Orders have been issued following the rules and there is no violation of any of the procedures and instructions issued by the Government.

5. The Tribunal, after finding that the allegations/charges levelled against the applicant fall under Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c) (i), in the absence of an order of suspension prior to an order of retention and both having been passed on the same day, came to the conclusion that the order of retention is bad in law and unsustainable; consequently allowed both the applications. Questioning the same, the above writ petitions have been filed by the Commercial Tax Department.

6. Heard Mr. E. Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate, for petitioners and Mr. R. Muthukannu, learned counsel for first respondent.

7. Before going into the aspect as to whether the charge memo was validly issued; and the ultimate order of the Tribunal quashing the same is correct?, let us consider whether the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of suspension on the ground that the suspension and retention orders were passed simultaneously.

8. It is not in dispute that the applicant was to retire on 31-7-97 and just 15 days prior to that date, a charge memo dated 15-7-97 was served on him on 23-7-97. We will consider the charge memo later. However, the charge is that during the period from 2-3-94 to 2-6-95, there