The main legal point established in the judgment is the Government's authority to refer cases to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as outlined in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, irrespective of the officer's affiliation with the State service, and the non-final decision-making authority of the Tribunal.

1. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the charge memo, dated 21.7.2007 framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner was working as a Sales Tax Collection Inspector attached to the Commercial Tax Office, Central Tiruppur. On 30.3.2005, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department made a sudden inspection and seized records including a sum of Rs.6045/-. It transpires that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the DVAC. However, the case of the petitioner was referred to an enquiry by the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Disciplinary Tribunal framed two charges. The first charge relating to the petitioner receiving Rs.200/- each from several persons as illegal gratification to renew their respective registration certificates while collecting renewal fees. The second charge was that he was in possession of Rs.6045/-, which has not been satisfactorily explained by him. The petitioner was also given a copy of the statement.

3. Subsequently, the tribunal issued summons in TDP Case No.07 of 2007 asking the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 24.8.2007. The petitioner did not disclose as to whether he had attended the enquiry and as to what had transpired before the Tribunal. However, he has now come forward to challenge the very charge memo on the ground that it is violative of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules.

4. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has no power or authority to try the disciplinary case of the petitioner. It can only try cases relating to the officers under State service involving corruption. Since the petitioner did not belong to State service, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. If his case is tried by the tribunal, his right of appeal will be affected. In normal circumstances, after enquiry is completed, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti corruption itself will forward a report to the Heads of Department or to the Government. It is only for the Government to decide whether the cases should be tried by the Tribunal or by the department concerned. In the present case, there is no order of the Government.

5. Mr. R. Shanmugam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the rule for constituting the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The rule will apply to all officers under the control of the State Government other than those referred to under Article 314 of the Constitution. He also referred to Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, which as as follows:

"4 (1)The Government shall, subject to the provisions of rule 5, refer the following cases to the Tribunal, namely:-

(a) Cases relating to Officers of the State Services in respect of matters involving corruption on the part of such Officers; and

(b) All appeals or petitions to the Government against orders passed on charges of corruption and all disciplinary cases in which the Government propose to revise original orders passed on such charges;

Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult the Tribunal-

(i) in any case in which the Tribunal has, at any previous stage, given advice in regard to the order to be passed and no fresh question has thereafter arisen for determination; or

(ii) whether the Government propose to pass orders rejecting such appeal or petition.

(2) The Government may, subject to the provisions of rule 5, also refer to the Tribunal any other case or class of cases which they consider should be dealt with by the Tribunal and the Government, in exercising the power conferred by this sub-rule, shall have regard to the nature and gravity of the charge, the grade or rank of the officer charged and the organisational strength of the department concerned in handling cases involving interpretation of rules regulating conditions of service of Government servants."

6. Th