The duty of every officer to implement the order of a competent Court of law and the requirement for proper evidence to substantiate disciplinary charges.

1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.1582 of 2000, challenging the order passed by the respondent. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.940 of 2007.

2. The petitioner, after his appointment as B.T.Assistant (Maths) on 18.07.68 in Government Higher School, Kumpinipet, North Arcot Ambedkar District, his services were regularised with effect from 18.07.68 and thereupon, he was also awarded Selection Grade as well as Special Grade with effect from 18.07.78 and 18.07.88 respectively. Later on, he was served as B.T.Assistant upto 19.07.90 and transferred as Assistant Educational Officer, Nemili on 20.06.90. Again, he was transferred to Government High School, Sayanapuram as B.T.Assistant (Maths) as per Na.Ka.No.7063/D3/95, dated 29.06.95 by the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. After joining as B.T.Assistant in the same school on 05.07.95, he was further promoted as Head Master of the Government High School and thereafter, he was serving as Head Master of the Government High School, Kaverirajapuram, Thiruvallur District. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant Educational Officer, Nemili Panchayat Union, Nemili, Vellore District, one Middle School Head Master, namely, T.S.Vadivelu (died after retirement), Sendamangalam, Nemili Panchayat Union, obtained a judgment from the Tribunal in O.A.No.582/90, dated 22.04.93, wherein, the Tribunal, set aside the reversion order dated 10.07.89 with a direction to the respondent to post the said T.S.Vadivelu as Head Master of Middle School in any one of the vacancies in Senthamangalam Panchayat Union with all attendant and consequential service benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. The said order copy was also communicated to the petitioner, who being the concerned authority to implement the said order as a pay drawing officer and as a duty bound officer, immediately on receipt of the said judgment from the D.E.O., passed an order posting the said Late T.S.Vadivelu as Middle School Headmaster on 09.06.93 and awarded all the consequential arrears of pay to him. The said Vadivelu, after receiving all the arrears of pay, on reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.10.93. Even after reaching the age of superannuation, he was given re-employment from 01.11.93 to 31.05.94. Subsequently, he was not in good health and therefore, he was relieved from the duty on 03.01.94 and thereafter, the said T.S.Vadivelu expired on 09.09.94.

After 1 = years from the date of the death of the said T.S.Vadivelu, the respondent issued a charge memo dated 30.11.95 under Rule 17(b) of CCA Rules alleging that the petitioner had treated the period of reversion as duty period and awarded the arrears of pay and thereby caused loss to the Government. Thereafter, the enquiry officer found charge nos.1 and 2 as proved by dismissing the charge nos.3 and 4 as not proved. In the said charge nos.1 and 2, the petitioner was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect and a recovery of amount of Rs.2,11,826/- was also ordered. The said impugned order of imposing the double punishment by order dated 17.02.99 is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect and a recovery of amount of Rs.2,11,826/- are contrary to law and hence, the same are liable to be set aside and it was further contended that no one was examined as witnesses to substantiate the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner. Further, the correctness of the issuance of the charge memo was not properly considered either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority through proper enquiry and evidence and the said charge memo was only an em