Competent disciplinary authority expected to conclude proceedings expeditiously; petitioner's cooperation essential for entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2015 in Na.Ka.No.71098-L1/2014 of the first respondent and to quash the same.)

1. The charge memo dated 02.02.2015 issued against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and on account of certain allegations, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The writ petitioner filed two writ petitions, one challenging the order of suspension and another challenging the charge memorandum. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service and therefore, the writ petition filed, challenging the order of suspension in W.P.No.4204 of 2015 was closed by this Court.

3. With reference to the present writ petition, the charges against the writ petitioner is that he has included certain ineligible persons to avail the Government benefits under the scheme contemplated by the Government. The other charges are that the petitioner has taken away the signed cheques unauthorizedly and he assisted the beneficiaries from purchasing Goats from other Districts, which is otherwise impermissible under the scheme. The impugned charge memorandum provides statement of allegations and imputations of misconduct. Annexure - III stipulates the list of documents and Annexure-IV provides list of witnesses. There is no infirmity as such in the charge memorandum, which is otherwise in accordance with the rules in force.

4. The petitioner on issuance of the impugned charge memorandum, has chosen to file the writ petition. The grounds raised in the writ petition are with reference to the Government Orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner can demonstrate the nature of the allegations, which all are otherwise untenable. The petitioner pursuant to the interim order granted in the other writ petition filed challenging the order of suspension, submitted his explanation, denying the charges. However, the respondents have not proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

5. The grounds raised on merits cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ proceedings as it involves examination of documents and evidences. Such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done in a writ proceedings. The procedures to be followed for conducting a departmental disciplinary proceedings are contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, which is to be followed by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Contrarily, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition for the purpose of adjudicating the merits involved in the charges. Thus, the very ground raised by the writ petitioner in this regard deserves no merit consideration.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner has already submitted an explanation long back and the respondents have not proceeded with the enquiry and therefore, he is deprived of his other service benefits.

7. The learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, objected the said contention by stating that on initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, the charge memorandum was issued. Instead of defending his case before the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has filed the writ petition and therefore, the department is not responsible for the delay in conclusion of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge memorandum, he kept the writ petition pending and therefore, the authorities could not able to conclude the proceedings. However, the petitioner wa