The main legal point established in the judgment is that an Assistant, like the petitioner, had no power to issue patta under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inam Estates Act, 1963, and that charge memos issued against the petitioner should adhere to the principles of natural justice.

1. The petitioner joined the service as Section Writer in the Survey Department on 03.12.1984 under the control of the Assistant Director, Survey and Settlement. He was absorbed as Surveyor on consolidated basis on 27.10.1989. His service was regularized on 22.08.1997 in the cadre of the Junior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted as an Assistant on 30.06.2003 and has been serving in the respondent Department without any remarks. The petitioner is serving in the office of the Director of Survey and Settlement. During the year 2001, the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Special Commissioner of Survey and Settlement. The Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple, Palladam previously owned vast extent of land. The Village was taken over under the Inam Abolition Act 30 of 1963 and parties were granted pattas after conducting an enquiry. The Settlement Thasildar in his proceedings SR No.664/68, dated 21.08.1968 granted patta for an extent of 5.57 acres and 4.62 acres comprised in S.No.232/1 and 234/1 in favour of Venkatachala Gounder and others under Section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963. The Thasildar has granted patta to an extent of 28 acres 40 cents comprised in S.Nos.232/2 and 234/2 in favour of Mandiragiri Velayudhaswamy Temple located at Parameswarampalayam, represented by its Poojari, Subramania Gurukal. The above said order has become final as early as in the year 1968. But subsequently Palaniswamy and 12 others filed C.M.A.No.30 of 2000 before the Inam Abolition Tribunal, Coimbatore challenging the said order dated 21.08.1968 on the ground that the Settlement Thasildar did not consider the claims of the appellant in respect of Survey No.232/2 and 234/2 and prayed for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner who was serving as a Junior Assistant in the respondent office has not sent any communication addressing any authority with reference to that case.

2. The petitioner has submitted that the Inam Abolition Tribunal held that no opportunity was given to the appellants to put-forth their contention before the Settlement Enquiry and by an order dated 18.11.2002, the Tribunal was pleased to set-aside the order dated 21.08.1968 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer to conduct an enquiry afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai5 who was holding the post of Settlement Thasildar due to the abolition post issued notice to the parties, conducted an enquiry and granted patta in favour of Rasappa Gounder and 20 others in Survey Nos.232/2 and 234/2. In the enquiry, on the side of the claimant, one Rasappa Gounder was examined and on the side of the temple, the Trustee, the Village Administrative Officer, Nallur and the Thasildar, Tiruppur was examined and the objection raised by the temple was negatived and the claimants were directed to pay the land assessment tax (20 times) and grant of patta for their possession and enjoyment under Section 11 Sub-Section 8(2)(1)(b) of the Act 30 of 1963 was ordered.

3. The petitioner further submits that against the grant of patta, the temple has filed a writ petition before the High Court, Madras in W.P.No.21360 of 2003 and initially this Court granted stay, but subsequently, the stay was vacated. It is submitted that when the order was passed by the statutory authority, viz., the Assistant Settlement Officer (South), Chennai, the petitioner, during that relevant time, was promoted as Assistant and serving in a different seat and he was not in charge of the files. Hence, the petitioner cannot be blamed that he has colluded with any party in order to grant pattas in favour of the parties. The petitioner was served with a charge memo as early as 28.03.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules containing 3 charges stating that he was responsible for granting of patta to an extent of 28.40 acres in favour of Palaniswamy and others. The petitioner further subm