The main legal point established in the judgment is that vague charges, lack of evidence, and violation of disciplinary rules can lead to the quashing of disciplinary orders.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent awarding the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner and to the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, with a prayer to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to retire from service and disburse all retiral benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub Registrar in the year 1977 and is having unblemished record of service. He has been served with a charge memo dated 06.03.2002 under Rule 17[b] of Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules on the allegation that the petitioner, due to dereliction of duty, has caused revenue loss to the tune of Rs.20,060/-. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 30.08.2004. The first charge memo was superseded by another charge memo dated 18.01.2005 for the very same allegation and it was issued under rule 17[b]. The Department issued yet another charge memo dated 14.10.2005 alleging that the petitioner has caused revenue loss to the tune of Rs.18,74,380/-for 207 items noted during August 2002 to July 2004 and thereby derelicted in his duties and violated Rule 20[1] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules.

2.1. An enquiry was conducted during the year 2006-2007 and ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.01.2007 holding that the charges have been proved against the petitioner and held that the petitioner has caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.8,97,657/-. Pursuant to the said Enquiry Report, the petitioner was suspended from service on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., on 25.01.2007 and he was also not permitted to retire from service.

2.2. As there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed WP.No.25828/2007. This court, by the order dated 01.08.2007 directed that the disciplinary proceedings should be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the said order, final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings on 04.12.2007 awarding punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed another writ petition in WP.No.7466/2009 and in the said writ petition, this court passed an order dated 23.04.2009 directing the Government to pass order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 04.01.2008. The said appeal was rejected by the Government, viz., the 1st respondent herein by the order dated 29.09.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amendment petition amending the prayer in which the petitioner has challenged both the orders, viz., the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.09.2009.

3. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 is liable to be set aside as the same is unsustainable in law and put forward the following contentions:-

[a] The charge is vague and not specific and as such, the entire proceedings is vitiated.

[b] The Enquiry Officer has given his findings only on the basis of the documents without examining any witnesses and as such, it cannot be stated that the charges have been proved against the petitioner.

[c] The disciplinary authority has failed to consider that this is a case of "no evidence" as the Department has not examined any witnesses to substantiate the charges and the Department cannot place reliance on the documents without examining its authors and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

[d] The petitioner has not been furnished with the internal audit report on the basis of which the charge memos have