1. The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Thuvariman Village, Madurai South Taluk. The petitioner worked as VAO in Thattanur, Vadivelkarai Vilacher Ananjiur etc. In Madurai North & South Taluk and Vadipatty Taluk, when 2C Trees Taxes were remitted in the Panchayat Union Office at Thirunagar upto 31.03.1997. The procedure of remittance of taxes was subsequently, changed, and in place of remittance, a Bank Account was ordered to be opened for each Panchayat with Nationalised Banks.

2. The petitioner was not informed about the change of procedure; therefore, it was after enquiry, that the petitioner deposited the amount with the Bank. The amount was deposited on 09.06.1997.

3. After the amount of tax collected was deposited, the petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules vide RC.No.9142/97/A dated 15.07.1997 on the following charges:

i. That he remitted the Tree Taxes with the delay of 70 days in respect of 20 cases and 40 days in respect of one case (as listed out in Annexure).

ii. The total amount involved in belated remittance is Rs.11,252/- which amounts to temporary embezzlement."

4. The petitioner filed explanation to the charge memo, by denying allegations. Though it is not disputed that the amount was deposited by petitioner prior to issuance of charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on receipt of explanation from petitioner, the respondents decided to convert the proceedings under Rule 17(b) for imposing major penalty, instead of minor penalty as envisaged with Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

5. The charge memo under Rule 17(b) was issued to the petitioner on 13.07.1998. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo, by denying the allegations.

6. In the revised charge memo issued under Rule 17(b), the following additional charges were added:

i. he disobeyed the orders of superiors

ii. that he was negligent in his official duty.

7. An enquiry officer was appointed, who held the petitioner guilty of charges. The competent authority, after issuing the show cause notice to petitioner and considering the explanation, agreed with the enquiry report, and imposed punishment of removal from service.

8. The appeal against the order of punishment was also dismissed, as also the review.

9. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment, primarily on the ground of it being arbitrary, and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, charges were framed under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as there was no allegation of motive, and the charge was only of delay in deposit of Tree taxes, therefore, it was not a case to proceed under Rule 17(b) of the Rules.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the enquiry was also conducted in violation of Statutory Rules, as after issuance of charge memo, the enquiry officer did not examine any prosecution witness in support of the charges, nor gave opportunity to petitioner to raise his defense or produce defense witness.

12. The enquiry officer proceeded merely on the basis of explanation submitted to the charge memo and held the petitioner guilty of charges.

13. The competent authority also blindly accepted the enquiry report, and imposed major punishment of removal from service.

14. It is not disputed that even before issuance of show cause notice or charge memo, the petitioner had deposited the amount. The respondents have also not disputed the fact, that there was change in procedure for depositing of taxes, which was the defense of petitioner for late deposit.

15. Perusal of record shows, that learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that statutory procedures, as envisaged under Statutory Rules, was