The gravity of the charges, the soundness of the procedures followed, and the connivance of the petitioner in misappropriation of government funds were central to the court's decision.

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 pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent herein in his R.O.No.480/2013, C.No.B2/PR.39/2013 dated 28.12.2013 imposing the punishment of removal from service and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his Rc.No.018664/AP.I(2)/2014 dated 13.11.2014 rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent herein in G.O.(D) No.889, Home (Police V) Department, dated 28.9.2016 rejecting the petition and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate thepetitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The punishment of removal from service and the consequential Appellate orders, confirming the punishment of removal from service are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he joined as Data Entry Operator in District Police Office at Cuddalore on 22.08.2005. He was posted as Junior Assistant with effect from 26.02.2010. A charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner on 21.06.2013. The allegation in the charge memo was that, while he was working as Token Clerk from 22.06.2010 to 07.03.2013 at Cuddalore District Police Office 'E' Section, he was responsible for the misappropriation committed by one Head Constable 1151 Senthilkumar. The allegation is also for being responsible for Head Constable Senthilkumar to misappropriate DCRG amount of Tmt.Banumathi Thanikachalam. Further allegation is for not properly maintained the details in 'E' Section CDs and register, regarding payments made to the retired Government servants, thereby was responsible for the misappropriation committed by the Head Constable Senthilkumar.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 11.07.2013, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted final report, holding that the charges are held proved against the writ petitioner. Accepting the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a memo, calling further explanation from the petitioner regarding his objections, if any on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 02.12.2013 and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order, imposing the punishment of removal from service in proceedings dated 28.12.2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.01.2014 and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 13.11.2014. Further, the petition before the Government was also rejected in G.O.(D).No.889, Home (Police V) Department dated 28.09.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules regarding the allegation of dereliction of duty without any dishonest motive is improper. All the three charges are regarding the allegation of dereliction of duty and therefore, the punishment of removal from service is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when several other employees were also involved in official performance of duties and it is a collective decision to be taken, the charge framed against the petitioner alone is improper.

5. It is contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report is perverse and based on 'no evidence'. One Smt.Angayarkanni, who is responsible for alteration of ECS details being a Data Entry Operator had deposed against the writ petitioner only with an intention to safeguard her position. Thus, the