The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority of the assisting officers in a surprise inspection and the legality of the inspection itself must be determined based on established procedures and authorization by the Government.

1. The petitioner entered the service as a directly recruited Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the year 1985. He was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I in the year 1990. He was further promoted as Regional Transport Officer in the year 2005.

2. It is stated that while the petitioner was doing work in his office at Erode on 23.02.2007, two Tahsildars of District Supply Office with Vigilance and Anti-corruption Officials entered the office at 5.00 p.m., and forcibly searched his personal belongings and also those of other staff. They seized several records saying that they came for surprise inspection of the office. The police constables, who accompanied them, blocked the passages of the office and detained all the visitors who came for their official business and seized the cash kept by them under threat and they were branded as touts used by the officials of the petitioners office, Erode. It is also stated that the Revenue Officials obtained statements from the alleged touts behind the back of the petitioner. They kept all the general public for more than 13 hours till the next day morning. They were subjected to harassment and they were directed to give statements against the officials of the Regional Transport Office. Finally, the inspecting officials obtained the petitioners signature and other Motor Vehicle Inspectors who were present in the office and also obtained signature in the last page of the inspection mahazar prepared by them without allowing the petitioner and others to read the contents of the same and without furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner and others.

3. While so, a criminal case was registered against the touts viz., Selvapathy and 20 others in Crime No.2/AC/2007/ER dated 24.02.2007 for the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 102 (1) Cr.PC. After investigation, the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officials, placed the petitioner and 9 other subordinate employees before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore in TDP case No.6/2009 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.379/2009 A3 dated 10.08.2009.

4. The allegation made against the petitioner was that while he was serving as a Regional Transport Officer at Erode, he violated the Motor Vehicle Rules 430 and failed to follow the instructions of the Superior Officers. It is further alleged that the aforesaid inspection revealed the following delinquencies:-

i) The petitioner obtained illegal gratification of Rs.400/-through an office staff for issuing an International Driving License for Navin Kumar of Erode.

ii) During the surprise inspection, unaccounted cash of Rs.64,290/- was recovered.

iii) Engaged a daily wage labour for doing work in the office without the permission of the superior officers.

iv) The office records including Acquaintance Register has not been maintained properly and the petitioner failed to sign the registers for the month of October to December 2006 and January 2007.

5. In these circumstances, the third respondent issued the impugned charge memo dated 10.08.2009, making the aforesaid allegations.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid charge memo dated 10.08.2009 issued by the third respondent on various grounds.

7. While ordering notice of motion on 23.12.2009, this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings.

8. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The second respondent also filed an application to vacate the interim order dated 23.12.2009 passed by this Court.

9. Heard Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

10. Though the petitioner raised various grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to onl