The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Special Officer cannot be held responsible for actions that occurred prior to assuming office, and the registration of sale deeds for allottees who had paid the full cost pursuant to the allotment orders and related agreements does not constitute misconduct.

1. The petitioner functioned as Special Officer of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Typist and Steno Typist Cooperative Housing Society for the period from 25 May 2001 to 30 July 2002. The respondent after a period of ten years, issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 18 May 2012, alleging that he connived with the former President of the society for allotment of plots to outsiders, ignoring the fact that allotment was made by the then president during his tenure and only after the expiry of his tenure, the petitioner took charge as Special Officer.

Brief facts :-

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. He was later promoted to the post of Cooperative Sub Registrar. While he was working as Circle Cooperative Sub Registrar (Housing), the Government superseded the elected Board of managements of cooperative societies. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.205 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 25 May 2001, authorizing the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to appoint Special Officer to manage primary cooperative societies. The petitioner was appointed as a special officer of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Typist and Steno Typist Cooperative Society. The petitioner functioned as Special Officer of the said society in addition to his work as Circle Cooperative Sub Registrar (Housing), covering 15 cooperative housing societies.

3. The then president Thiru.S.Sundar has allotted housing plots to non-members by creating false records. Allotments were made prior to assumption of charge by the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have executed 28 documents after satisfying that allottees have paid full cost pursuant to the order of allotments and related agreements.

4. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit registered a case against Mr.Sundar and others. The petitioner is not an accused.

5. The respondent, pursuant to the report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption unit, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 18 May 2012. The charge memo is challenged primarily on the ground that he was not responsible for allotment of plots and as such, it was not correct to allege that he connived with the former president for allotment of plots to outsiders, in violation of the bye-laws of the society.

6. The respondent filed a counter affidavit justifying the disciplinary proceedings. According to the respondent, pursuant to the complaint preferred by the members of cooperative society, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department conducted enquiry. It was found that S.Sundar, the then president, manipulated records and sold plots to private parties. Vigilance and Anti Corruption Unit registered a case against Sundar under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption recommended action to be taken against the petitioner and other special officers. According to the respondent, the petitioner would be given a fair opportunity to substantiate his contentions before the Enquiry Officer.

Submissions :-

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even as per the admitted case, the petitioner assumed charge as special officer only on 25 May 2001. The entire incident took place prior to his appointment as Special Officer. The petitioner was expected to sign the sale deed after verifying payment made by the allottees. The petitioner, having found that the allottees have paid the entire cost, registered the documents. Since the petitioner was not in office when the allotments were made, no charge would lie against him. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was cited only as a witness in the criminal case registered against Thiru.Sundar by Vigilance and Anti Corruption and as such, he is not liable to be proceeded departmentally.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader justified the impugned proceedings. According to the learned Additional Government Plead