The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely reporting under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the authority of the District Collector to confiscate seized commodities, and the necessity to comply with Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in initiating disciplinary proceedings.

1. The petitioner was appointed directly as Sub Inspector of Police in 1979. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in 1994. While he was serving as Inspector of police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Tirunelveli during the year 2000, he was on leave from 26.1.2000 to 01.3.2000.

2. One Thiru. Krishnamurthy, Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D., Nagercoil was in-charge of Tirunelveli unit. Thiru. K. Krishnamurthy, raided a rice mill namely Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill at Karisalkulam, Kovilpatty Taluk on 18.2.2000 and seized 3,935 bags of rice from the two Godowns of the said mill. He also put seal to the Godowns from where the rice bags were seized. Further, he handed over the seized rice bags to the Taluk Supply Officer, Kovilpatty.

3. The petitioner, after the expiry of the leave continued with the investigation. He submitted a report dated 20.03.2000 to the District Collector, Thoothukudi to confiscate the tender rice handed over to Taluk Supply Officer. The District Collector is the competent authority to confiscate rice. But no order was passed by the District Collector for confiscation of rice as contemplated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner also sent another letter dated 12.12.2000 for confiscation of the rice.

4. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.215 Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection department, dated 09.11.2005 to initiate departmental action against the persons, who are responsible for the lapses in the aforesaid incident. Para 6 of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:

"TAMIL"

5. In the meantime, the Director General of Police issued a charge sheet dated 13.6.2008 to the petitioner, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. A similar charge memo was issued to Thiru. Krishnamurthy, the then Inspector of Police, who was in-charge of Tirunelveli unit, at the time of seizure.

6. Two charges were made in the charge memo dated 13.6.2008. Those charges are as follows:

"i) Gross neglect of duty in having kept the seized rice bags in the Godown of Annathammal Kasi Modern Rice Mill instead of sending them to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown then and there.

(ii) Gross dereliction of duty and failure to send report in time to the collector, Thoothukudi to give interim disposal to the seized rice as per section 6 (A) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, though he was aware that the seized rice were discoloured and that the authority in Civil Supplies Corporation Godown has issued quality certificate that they were discoloured which has resulted in the rice becoming rotten as it was kept sealed, as a result of which the Government have incurred a monetary loss of Rs.26,72,408.70 towards compensation to the owner of the rice mill on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras."

7. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.1.2009 pointing out that he was on leave during the said incident and also took action on 20.3.2000 requesting the Collector to confiscate the rice. However, the Director General appointed the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Supplies, C.I.D., Chennai as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24.12.2010 holding that the charges against the petitioner were partially proved. The Enquiry Officer held that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in sending report under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to the District Collector.

8. It is relevant to note that the Director General of Police, who issued the charge sheet and appointed the Enquiry Officer, sent a letter dated 18.2.2009 to the Government recommending for dropping of further action against the petitioner and Thiru. Krishnamurthy.

9. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent sent a notice dated 13.6.2011 asking the petitioner to submit his remarks on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner made a representation dat