Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only to those who are vigilant about their rights.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.619, Home (Prisons-2) Department, dated 14.07.2009 confirming the orders passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.40759/EW 2/2008 dated 20.10.2008 and the order passed by the third respondent in Proceedings No.45697/EW-2/2006 dated 02.01.2007 and the order passed by the fourth respondent in Proceedings No.2045/Mu.U/2005-4 dated 27.06.2006 and quash the said orders and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.)

1. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in G.O. (D) No.619, Home (Prisons-2) Department, dated 14.07.2009 confirming the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.40579/EW 2/2008 dated 20.10.2008 and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.45697/EW-2/2006 dated 02.01.2007 and the order passed by the 4th respondent in Proceedings No.2045/Mu.U/2005-4, dated 27.06.2006.

2. Brief facts:

i) The petitioner was working as Grade-II Warden of the Central Prison, on 25.03.1998, thereafter, he was transferred from Central Prison, Trichy to Sub-Jail, Tirukoilur on 28.06.2006 and to Central Prison, Palayamkottai on 30.09.2007.

ii) A charge memo dated 14.07.2005 was issued in terms of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner. The charge was that, when the petitioner was on duty at the Visitors checking room, the Anti-corruption Police, Trichy conducted a surprise check on 20.04.2005 and a sum of Rs.1,930/- received from the visitors and a ten rupee note bearing No.79B472410 sent by the said police for identification was recovered from the petitioner.

iii) The petitioner responded to the charge memo by way of an explanation dated 17.08.2005 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry commenced from 23.02.2006. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as he cross examined the petitioner on a number of aspects thereby effectively donning the role of Presiding Officer, which is impermissible and would vitiate the entire proceedings.

iv) The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The same was communicated to the petitioner on 09.05.2006. An additional explanation was offered by the petitioner on 29.05.2006. However, the 4th respondent vide proceedings No.2045/Mu.U/2005-4, dated 27.06.2006 imposed a punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum pay scale for 5 years with cumulative effect.

v) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent primarily on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has acted in excess of his jurisdiction. The Appeal was rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation inasmuch as the appeal should have been preferred on or before 20.08.2006, however, the appeal was filed belatedly on 04.10.2006. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent / Director General of Prisons, Chennai, who in turn rejected the appeal stating that the Additional Director General of Police/3rd respondent had already rejected the appeal and there is no provision to review the same, and that a representation can be made to the Government.

vi) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the Government, which was rejected on 14.10.2009. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the very same premise that the disciplinary proceedings suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction.

3. To the contrary, Mrs.Karthikaa, learned counsel for the responde