The court's decision emphasized the importance of complying with Rule 7 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and upheld the findings based on evidence.

S. Tamilvanan, J.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 15.04.2004, passed in O.A.No.3570 of 2003 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner herein has preferred this writ petition.

2. The petitioner herein Thiru.G.Umasekaran was formerly working as Regional Transport Officer at Coimbatore, Erode and Madurai. During the relevant period from 01.03.1986 to 312. 1990, while working as Regional Transport Officer, he was charged for abusing his official position, by corrupt practice, and acquired assets in the form of movable and immovable properties in his name and also in the name of his wife to an extent of Rs.3,99,645.24/- disproportionate to the known sources of his legitimate income.

3. It was alleged by the second respondent that the petitioner had constructed a house, bearing D.No.12 and 13, at Anaikaran Thottam, Ganapathy Village, Coimbatore in the name of his wife Tmt.U.Manimozhi, during the year 1989-1990, without getting permission from the competent authority, as required under Rule 7 (i) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. He failed to obtain prior permission from the Department for purchasing a house bearing Door No.178, Lakshmi Mills Colony, P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore in the name of his wife in February 1989, thereby violating Rule 7 (1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.

4. On the aforesaid charges, the concerned Disciplinary Authority had conducted enquiry, 27 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and 2 witnesses were examined on the side of the writ petitioner as defence witnesses.

5. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, considering the evidence of both sides, has held that the charges are proved, for which given the following reasons:

I. There is no evidence to prove that his wife received loans from Thiru.C.V.Ramiah and Thiru.S.Kannan without any interest for construction of house at Ganapathy Village .

II. There is no evidence to prove that the D.Os wife had independent earning on regular basis nor she had her own sources of income.

III. She was used as a facade by the delinquent officer to cover up his illegal income, since she cannot be credited with the construction of two houses on her own without the assistance of her husband.

.IV. The income returns were filed in 1987 in a hurried manner by the D.Os wife.

.V. The income of his wife prior to the period covered under income tax returns was not shown in any property statement.

VI. Therefore, the so-called income at the beginning of the check period projected by the delinquent officer based on the income tax return is either already or there was no income at all.

VII. The claim of the D.O. Relating to rental income and rental advance prior to the check period cannot be taken into account, unless it is definitely proved by documentary or acceptable evidence.

6. The petitioner herein offered his further representation as follows:

I. The house at Erode was acquired on 23.05.1975 i.e., before the check period. But, the Tribunal has failed to consider the income derived from the house.

II. His wife, Tmt.Manimozhi has obtained a loan of Rs.1,20,000/-from CANFIN Housing construction towards the construction of her house.

III. Her father has paid Rs.1,30,000/- to her being a share in her fathers property.

IV. The value of the buildings has been fixed much higher than the rates prevailed before 10 years.

7. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after conducting enquiry, sent its reports, dated 210. 1999 to the first respondent/Secretary to Government, Home [Transport II] Department, Chennai, wherein the enquiry officer has held that charge No.1 had been partly proved and other two charges were fully proved. Based on which, the first respondent, by his letter dated, 012. 1999 in Letter No.117721/Transport II/99-1 furnished copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and provided opportunity to make his representations. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written re