The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellate authority to consider the adequacy of the penalty imposed by the original authority, as per Rule 23 of the Service Rules and relevant case laws.

The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing O.A.No.1102 of 1997, questioning the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 12.06.1996 confirming the order of removal passed by the Original Authority dated 04.01.1996. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.21794 of 2006.

2. The short facts which led the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal are set out hereunder:

The petitioner was initially selected to the post of Junior Assistant under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on compassionate grounds and he was posted on appointment at the Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem in the vacancy caused by one P.Subramaniam, on his promotion to the post of Assistant. The petitioner was appointed to the said post by an order of the second respondent dated 15.06.1992 and he joined service on 22.06.1992. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 03.08.1995 for the reason that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,879/-collected by him in the Hospital Stoppage Section on behalf of the third respondent. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, dated 22.08.1995 was issued to him. He has submitted a detailed explanation dated 12.09.1995. Even before that, in the preliminary enquiry held on 02.08.1995, he had admitted that he utilised the said amount due to unavoidable circumstances. After enquiry, he was removed from service by the order of the Original Authority, viz., third respondent, dated 04.01.1996, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, Appellate Authority. The second respondent, by his order dated 12.06.1996, confirmed the order of the Original Authority dated 04.01.1996. Hence, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal challenging those orders.

3. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the Appellate Authority has not given any independent reason for confirming the order of the Original Authority. Further, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when the petitioner admitted the guilt and explained the circumstances under which he had utilised the fund collected by him for his personal expenses, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the said plea made by the petitioner while deciding the appeal preferred by him. The learned counsel further contended that the procedure contemplated under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has not been followed by the second respondent while disposing of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the Original Authority had considered all aspects while imposing the extreme punishment of removal from service by his order dated 04.01.1996 and the Appellate Authority also, while confirming the order of the Original Authority, by his order dated 12.06.1996, considered the entire aspects of the matter in issue; and hence, the same does not require any reconsideration by this Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. The petitioner while preferring an appeal to the second respondent has raised several grounds and some of them are extracted hereunder:

" 15. I humbly submit that I was made to admit the mistake and I was promised job security if I remit Rs.1879/-. So, even though the entire mistake was done by the Driver, Sri.Perumal, the complainant, I had admitted as if I had done the misappropriation.

16. xxxxx

17. xxxxx

18. I respectfully submit that at the outset I was imposed with a penalty of removal from the service by the Dean, Govt.Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Sa