ORDER :

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records connected in G.O.3(D) No. 66, dated 09.08.2000 of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. The present petitioner filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in Dairy No. 8240 of 2004, which, at the condone delay stage, stood transferred to this Court and after orders of this Court, the O.A. transferred was directed to be numbered as writ petition in W.P. No. 18431 of 2008. That is how this writ petition has come before this Court with the prayer to call for the records connected in G.O.3(D) No. 66, dated 09.08.2000 of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) on 30.10.1982 and after working various stations, he was transferred and posted to Section-II, Usilampatti, Madurai District. Till such time, he already rendered 11 years service in the Department with unblemished record.

4. When he was working as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Usilampatti Division No. II, the people of Sadachipatti village, seems to have given a representation stating that during rainy season due to heavy flood flow in the supply Odai (canal) leading to Sadachipatti tank developed several breaches, therefore, they wanted to make some corrective measures, i.e. repair works in that Odai, which is situated 5 kms North of Usilampatti - Madurai Road.

5. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that, estimate was prepared as instructed by the higher officials and accordingly, work was given to the contractor, the contractor had undertaken the work and he has completed the work immediately in view of the ensuing rainy season during that year.

6. However, subsequently, it seems that, due to some petitions, which, according to the petitioner, are anonymous petitions received by the higher-ups of the Public Works Department, an inspection was ordered. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD, one Chinnappan was asked to inspect the work place at the Odai and to give a report as to whether the petitions received against the petitioner in this regard that the works were not undertaken in the Odai were true or not. Accordingly, that Executive Engineer, Chinnappan on 26.05.1993 inspected the Odai concerned along with one R. Venkatasubbu, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and one K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, who is one of the four delinquents against whom subsequently, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated.

7. Accordingly, a report, dated 26.05.1993 was prepared by M. Chinnappan, which was signed by both Venkatasubbu and Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineers, PWD and the same was submitted to the Chief Engineer, PWD on 28.05.1995. According to the said Inspection Report, there was no work undertaken in the Odai concerned, without having undertaken the repair work estimate was prepared, bills and vouchers were prepared and accordingly, amount has been paid. Therefore, based on such alleged action on the part of the delinquents, the department decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against four members, they are (1) Thirumalai Kumarasamy, Executive Engineer, PWD, (2) K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, (3) R. Ramasubramaniam, Assistant Engineer, PWD, the petitioner herein and (4) M.P. Mookiah, Junior Engineer, PWD.

8. In this context, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner, who is one of the four delinquent officers, on 12.10.1995, where, three charges were framed and in respect of the other two, namely Thirumalai Kumarasamy and K. Muniandi, similar charges were framed and there was a joint enquiry conducted in respect of all the three. However, in respect of M.P. Mookiah is concerned, though char