The judgment established the importance of consistent disciplinary action, the limited impact of acquittal in criminal proceedings on domestic enquiries, and the significance of documentary evidence in misconduct cases.

1. The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in pursuance of the impugned orders passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.17484/99/C1, dated 30.03.2001 and the consequential appellate order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.39579/2001/H2, dated 04.05.2006 and the Revision Order passed by the first respondent in Government Order [Ten Years] No.51 Municipal Administration and Water Supply [Na.Pa.1] Department, dated 09.02.2007 and quash these orders and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant and monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, are follows:

2.1. The petitioner had been working as Junior Assistant in the 3rdrespondent Municipality from 27.08.1991. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 3rdrespondent on 24.12.1999 for misappropriation and forgery with two others. The petitioner paid the sum of Rs.1,25,030/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand and Thirty only) under the belief that he would be reinstated into service. However, a charge memo was issued on 09.03.2000. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:

“LANGUAGE”

2.2. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner also participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that all the charges against the petitioners were proved based on the documentary evidence. The report was furnished to the petitioner and his explanation was sought for. The petitioner had also submitted an explanation. After considering the explanation and the report along with the documentary evidence, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the 3rdrespondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2832 of 2001 and obtained an order of interim stay. As against the interim order of the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.22222 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application within four months and till such time, status quo was directed to be maintained. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the O.A and filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent. The revision petition filed challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as the petitioner was working in different schemes where the malpractices and misappropriation took place. The Counsel further contended that the amounts from the shelter scheme account was withdrawn by one Thirumalai and Raghavan. The Counsel further contended that since the police complaint was dropped on the same charges, the 3rd respondent ought not to have proceeded with the enquiry. The Counsel further contended that in view of the letter of the 2ndrespondent, the appointment of the manager of the municipality is vitiated. Further, the denial of opportunity to examine Thirumalai amounts to violations of the principles of natural justice. The Counsel further placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in 2007(2) Writ L.R 52 contended that the action of the 3rd respondent was discriminatory as different yard stick had been observed with regard to other delinquents and therefore, he sought for setting aside of the impugned orders.

4. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no perversity in the orders passed by the respondents. The punishment of termination from service was awarded only after considering the documentary evidence that the funds from the account of Raghavan to the tune of Rs.49,500/- had ultimately been transferred to the account of the petitioner. The Counsel further contended that the petitioner and others misappropriated public funds by forging the signature of th