(Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent, the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.1657/1994 & 1658/1994 dated 3.4.2002 and subsequently quash the same.)

Common Order:

P.K. Misra, J.

W.P.Nos.3729 and 3730 of 2004 were heard together. Both the writ petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1657 and 1658 of 1994. O.A.No.1657 of 1994 was filed by M. Raman and O.A.No.1658 of 1994 was filed by V. Sekar against the separate orders passed by the disciplinary authority removing them from service.

2. M. Raman, the Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.3729 of 2004, was working as watchman in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Washermanpet, whereas V. Sekar was working as Junior Assistant in the very same office. The substance of the charge memo against Raman is to the effect that (i) he had admitted Sekar in the office without permission from the Officers at about 3.00 a.m. on 21.8.1993, (ii) he had allowed and admitted Ramachandran, Record Clerk to stay in the office thereby he had abated the removal of valuable documents by Sekar, iii) he had not intimated about the tampering of wire mesh fixed in the chamber of Commercial Tax Officer to the authority concerned and (iv) by allowing Ramachandran to stay in the office during night time, he had enabled Ramachandran to admit Sekar in the office during night time.

2.1 Raman in his explanation, regarding charges to the effect that he had admitted Sekar on 21.8.1993, he has stated that he had locked all the doors of the office and kept the key with himself and since he was ailing, he was taking rest inside the premises and he came to know about the entry of Sekar from Ramachandran and since Sekar was also an office staff, he did not consider the entry of Sekar as serious enough.

2.2 In the departmental enquiry, no witness had been produced on behalf of the Department. However, the delinquent was examined and made a statement practically reiterating the defence taken by him. In course of such hearing, Raman had stated that Sekar, Junior Assistant, used to come to office in the night once or twice in a week and attend office work and he is employed in the office, and therefore as a night watchman he had not objected to the presence of Sekar in the office. He had further stated that Ramachandran, record clerk, was staying in the office on that day and on earlier occasions he used to stay in the open terrace near the steps and used to stay in the office frequently. He had further stated that he was not aware of tampering of steel mesh on the date of incident and he came to know only on the next day evening when he was questioned about the incident.

2.3 The enquiry officer under Charge No.1 found that by permitting two persons to stay in the office without permission, the watchman had committed delinquency. Under Charge No.2 he had found that by allowing them to stay in the office he had conspired with Sekar and Ramachandran. Under Charge No.3, it was stated that the very statement that he did not know about the removal of wire mesh until it was brought to his notice by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer itself shows his negligence. Regarding Charge No.4, the enquiry officer opined as if the charge had been admitted, even though it was not so. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal from service by order dated 16.2.1994. Such order was challenged in O.A.No.1657 of 1994 by Raman.

3. So far as Sekar is concerned, he was served with charge memo to the effect that (i) he had come and stayed in the office at odd hours without any reason and without obtaining permission from the officer, (ii) he had removed the steel mesh fixed in the ventilator of the Commercial Tax Officer’s Chamber and entered the chamber stealthily, (iii) he had