The principle of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment, was upheld by the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating the impugned order of the first respondent issued in G.O.(Ms) No.83, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 29.05.2008 and the consequential order passed in G.O.(D) No.519, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E1) Department, dated 13.10.2015 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Joint Director of Rural Development with continuance of service and all other attendant benefits.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner herein, who was the former Personal Assistant (Panchayat Development) to the District Collector, Coimbatore and while serving as a Project Officer, (P.I.U.), Mahalir Thittam, Coimbatore was levelled with certain charges under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as "TNCS (D&A) Rules]" through a charge memo dated 15.12.1999. The nature of the charges against the petitioner is that there were some irregularities in the purchase of 222 Television Sets, whereby the petitioner herein is alleged to have instructed one Thiru G.Gopikrishna, Divisional Technical Assistant, Pollachi Division to collect Rs.2000/- per Television Set, totally amounting to Rs.4,44,000/- as illegal gratification. Prior to the framing of the charges, Thiru G.Gopikrishna, whose name was also implicated in the petitioner’s charge memo, was allowed to retire on 05.08.1999, on medical invalidation. The petitioner herein alone was subjected to an inquiry under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules and through an inquiry report dated 06.06.2002, the charges were held to be proved. Based on the proven charges and the advice of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the first respondent herein had imposed the punishment of “removal from service” to the petitioner.

3. During the course of inquiry, the statement of three witnesses namely, G.Gopikrishna, S.Kulandaivelu and P.V.Ramakrishnan were recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Among the three, except Thiru G.Gopikrishna, the other two witnesses did not implicate the petitioner of having involved in the charges. However, the witness Thiru G.Gopikrishna had stated that he had received a commission of Rs.1500/- for each Television Set and while retaining Rs.500/- for himself, he alleged that the balance amount was handed over to the petitioner herein. In view of the statement of Thiru G.Gopikrishna, the charges against the petitioner was held to have been proved by the Inquiry Officer.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner predominantly raised a ground stating that though the petitioner had been repeatedly seeking permission to cross examine Thiru G.Gopikrishna, who is the only witness and who directly implicated the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer had not given him the opportunity to cross examine him. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the original files relating the petitioner’s inquiry and by pointing out to the petitioner’s statement dated 07.12.2001, submitted that such a claim was given up by the petitioner himself. A perusal of the statement dated 07.12.2001 reveals that the petitioner had categorically stated that since all the evidences supporting him are already in the files before the Inquiry Officer, he did not want to cross examine Thiru G.Gopikrishna. Thus, when the petitioner himself has given up the right to cross examine Thiru G.Gopikrishna, the Inquiry Officer cannot be found fault with.

5. However, the enquiry proceedings appears to be vitiated on a more serious aspect. Admittedly, the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved only through the statements of Thiru G.Gopikrishna that he had received Rs.1,500/- from the Television Dealer and while retaining Rs.500/-, he had handed over the balance amount to the petitioner herein. In the or