The duty of the department to prove charges against the delinquent, the violation of natural justice principles, and the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

1. The case of the petitioner is that she joined as Children Welfare Organizer, with effect from 15.12.1972 under the first respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner passed S.S.L.C., and promoted as Rural Welfare Officer. On 03.09.2003, the first respondent issued a charge memo stating that SSLC certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be bogus. Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation. The petitioner, on 23.09.2003, submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was orally prevented from attending the duty. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3579 of 2003, which was disposed of, on 03.11.2003, directing the respondents to take action either permitting the petitioner to work in the office or place her under suspension.

2. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear, on 15.12.2003, before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner sought for copy of the communication forwarded by the fourth respondent to the first respondent. However, the copy of the document sought for by the petitioner was not furnished. The petitioner, reserving her rights, appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted her explanation. In the meantime, by a communication, dated 17.03.2004, the second respondent directed the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why she approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner also offered her explanation for the same. However, by proceedings, dated 12.02.2007, the petitioner was suspended from service.

3. Aggrieved over the order of suspension, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10067 of 2007. This Court, by order, dated 20.03.2007, granted an order of interim stay. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was permitted to join duty, on 30.04.2007. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued a communication, dated 25.06.2007, seeking further explanation from the petitioner on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The first respondent, without satisfying the explanation given by the petitioner, passed the order of dismissal from service, by his proceedings, dated 29.08.2007, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (MD).No.7980 of 2007. This Court, by order, dated 28.06.2011, while setting aside the impugned order of dismissal from service, observed that the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by the report of the Enquiry Officer and further observed that as the petitioner had already retired from service, it is needless to say that the entire benefits has to be settled to her, if the authorities are not intending to take action, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the first respondent, by proceedings, dated 23.12.2011, removed the petitioner from service. The said order of the first respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for copies of certain documents, which were not furnished to her, and hence, non-supply of documents to the delinquent would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent and the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth her case effectively. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, makes reliance upon the following Judgments:-

(i) D. Vincent Vs. The Director of Government Examinations, [W.A.No.320 of 1979, dated 19.06.1985];

(ii) J. Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare, [W.P.[MD].No.7106 of 2008; and

(iii) Ponnuthai Vs. The Director, Social Welfare Department, [W.P.[MD].No.3023 of 2011, dated 01.10.2012]

and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of removal from service with appropri