The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the disciplinary proceedings were flawed, the allegations against the petitioner required further inquiry.

The petitioner is common in both these Writ Petitions.

2. In W.P.No.19769 of 2001, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation dated 17-9-2001, in and by which, the petitioner's appeal against the order of punishment of dismissal came to be rejected.

3. In W.P.No.35667 of 2002, the petitioner seeks to challenge the initial order of dismissal dated 31-12-1999.

4. The brief facts which are required to be stated are, that the petitioner was employed as a Town Planning Inspector in Pollachi Municipality and at the relevant point of time, he was holding additional charge as Assistant Town Planning Officer. There was a complaint as against the petitioner dated 13-8-1978 in regard to the clearance of layout papers submitted by the owners M/s.Radhakrishnan and Mrs.Soundarajothi in T.S.No.288/1D/1E of Vilankurchi village stating that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the approval of the layout. The said layout was stated to have been cleared and sanction made on 14-8-1997. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 13-12-1997, in which, the following three charges were levelled against the petitioner.

Charge 1:

Thiru A.Thangavelu, Town Planning Inspector and Asst.Town Planning Officer (in-charge) North Zone demanded Rs.50,000/- from the agent of Thiru Radhakrishnan and Soundarajothi for approval of layout in T.S.No.288/1D/1E of Vilankruchi village.

Charge 2:

By such demand, you have committed dereliction of duty.

Charge 3:

By such action you have caused bad name to the Corporation."

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 5-1-1998, thereafter an enquiry was ordered to be held by the City Health Officer and the enquiry was posted on 19-4-1998. On the date of the enquiry, the petitioner is stated to have made a request for examining seven witnesses on his side. The said request of the petitioner was not acceded to and simultaneously the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the same day. In the said report, the Enquiry Officer concluded that while the demand of money by the petitioner was not fully proved the said allegation cannot also be ignored totally.

6. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner on 27-4-1998 along with the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 19-2-1998 and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25-5-1998, wherein, he took the stand that Enquiry Officer's report cannot be acted upon inasmuch as no full proof enquiry was held. He also stated that unless the witnesses whom he wanted to examine in the enquiry were summoned and examined, the petitioner will not be able to submit his full-fledged explanation.

7. Be that as it may, it is stated that there was a complaint against the Coimbatore City Corporation as regards certain serious irregularities in the execution of development work in an un-approved layout called "Varadharajulu Nagar" in Coimbatore. With reference to the said episode, it appears that the Council of Coimbatore Corporation wanted a detailed report and the petitioner was asked to submit his report.

8. On a perusal of the files produced before this Court, it transpires that the petitioner submitted his report dated 3-7-1998, wherein he pointed out that the said development works were undertake without getting proper sanction from the concerned authorities.

9. In the above stated background, the petitioner was issued with the order of suspension dated 18-8-1998 by the then Commissioner of Corporation of Coimbatore which was again based on the charge sheet already issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have challenged the said suspension order in W.P.No.19768 of 1998 and also obtained stay of the suspension order dated 18-8-1998. As there was alleged violation of the order of interim stay, contempt proceedings were also taken and ultimately, the petitioner was al