SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 3346

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
N. Sivakumaran
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government & Others
W.P.No.27639 of 2006
Decided on : 12-09-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Singaravelan, R. Vijayakumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Gopinathan, Additional Government Pleader.

Headnote:

Illegal Gratification - Service Dismissal - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 23

Fact of the Case:

A Village Administrative Officer challenged the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the orders of the Government for his dismissal from service due to charges of receipt of illegal gratification and misappropriation. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings found the first and fourth charges proved, leading to the petitioner's dismissal from service. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission advised the Government to dismiss the appeal as devoid of merit. The petitioner appealed to the State Government, contending that the penalty was unsustainable in law and bristled with arbitrariness and improper appreciation of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellate authority failed to consider the statutory appeal with reference to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Court held that the appellate authority's order was cryptic and lacked active application of mind, and therefore set aside the impugned order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for reconsideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate authority disposed of the statutory appeal with reference to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellate authority's order lacked active application of mind and failed to consider the parameters set out in Rule 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of providing brief reasons in the order affirming the views of the disciplinary authority.

Final Decision: The impugned order of punishment was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to consider all the parameters in Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and to pass an order on merits within a specified period.

Judgment :

A Village Administrative Officer removed from service pursuant to departmental enquiry of charges of receipt of illegal gratification and misappropriation has challenged the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 11. 1995 and the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.669 dated 112. 1995 and consequentially for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with service and monetary benefits.

2. Though the petitioner has raised several contentions assailing the impugned orders on the grounds of lack of evidence, non-consideration of his explanation in proper perspective and other grounds, Mr. R. Singaravelan learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has failed to consider the statutory appeal with reference to the parameter set in Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was an Administrative Officer. He was placed on defence in DE No.3/88 dated 13. 1988 by the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal for the following charges.

"Charge – 1: That while he (Applicant) was working as Village Administrative Officer, Pottaneri Nallagoundanpatti Village and Veerakkalpudur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his (Applicants) official position and authority, on 12. 2007 at about 7. a.m. When Thiru Mohammed Mohideen, S/o. Shahul Hammed, Asfa Grocery Shop Moolakkadai, Kunjandtyur, Mettur Taluk, met him (Applicant) and showed the memo received by him from the Tahsildar, Mettur requesting him to produce a certificate of his non-involvement in any Civil/Criminal cases and also a certificate to the effect that he had sufficient means to run a Grocery shop for the purpose of renewal of his licence for dealing in food grains and essential commodities and requested him (Applicant) to issue the aforesaid certificates, he (Applicant) after going through the memo, demanded from the said Mohammed Mohideen an illegal gratification of Rs.150/- for issuing the certificates, when the said Mohammed Mohideen informed that he had not brought, so much money he (Applicant) told him that he need not worry since the following two days were holidays, that he could pay the money in the evening and get the certificates. In pursuance of the aforesaid demand and direction, on 12. 1987 at about 8.30 a.m. he (Applicant) had received the illegal gratification of Rs.150/- from the said Mohammed Mohideen at his (Applicants) residence at No.36/240 Thermal Plant, VOC. Nagar Thangammapuripattinam, Mettur Dam R.S. and issued him the certificates as requested by him.

Charge No.2.

That, while he (Applicant) was working as Village Administrative Officer, Pottaneri Nallagoundanpatti Village and Veerakalpudur Village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his official position and authority, on 12. 87 and 12. 1987 with dishonest motive and with intention to obtain wrongful gain to himself (Applicant) he (Applicant) had collected a total sum of Rs.120/- at Rs.15/-each from:

1. Tmt. Venkateswari w/o. Balasubramaniam, Puduchampalli, Veerakalpaudur Village.

2. Tmt. Mani, w/o. Madesh, Puduchampalli.

3. Tmt. Kaveri w/o. Vijayarathinam, Puduchampalli.

4. Tmt. Thulasimani, w/o. Arumugham, Puduchampalli.

5. Tmt. Kaveri, w/o. Angappan, Puduchampalli.

6. Tmt. Pappai, w/o. Sankaran, Karumalaikudal.

7. Tmt. Suseela, w/o. Arjunan, Puduchampalli.

8. Tmt. Narasammal, w/o. Palaniappan, Puduchampalli.

At his (application) residence at No.36/240, Thermat plant road V.O.C. Nagar, Thangammapuripattinam, Mettur Dam, R.S. for enrolling them under the Labour Insurance-cum-retirement benefit special Scheme and accounted for only Rs.80/-at Rs.10/- each by writing the receipt on 12. 1987 after his (Applicants arrest in trap case (Vide charge-1 above) and he (Applicant) had misappropriated the balance amount of Rs.40/-.

Charge No.3:

That, while he (Applicant) wa
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top