ORDER :

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.22, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 24.02.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to confer all the consequential benefits.

The petitioner herein had been recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondents Department in the year 1970 and was later promoted to the cadres of Assistant and Superintendent. During his tenure of service as Superintendent on deputation in Arulmigu Subramanisami Thirukoil, Thiruchenthur, he was implicated for three charges of misconducts under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), through a charge memo dated 17.09.2007, alleging that he had placed orders of photo pictures, dollars and key chains from Madurai Jayalakshmi Photos for sale by the temple at the cost of Rs.15,00,000/- and had received forged quotations, by deliberately flouting and violating the tender rules and procedures. Not being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the petitioner on 30.11.2007 to the levelled charges, a departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges were held to be 'not proved', in the enquiry report dated 25.02.2010.

2. The Government/first respondent herein, through their letter dated 16.09.2010, deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the charges as 'proved' and after assigning reasons, had called upon the employee to render his further explanation. The petitioner had given his further written explanation on 24.09.2010. Thereafter, the second respondent herein, through his proceedings dated 30.09.2010, had placed the petitioner under suspension and did not allow him to retire from service, on reaching the age of superannuation. After about three years, the opinion of the TNPSC was obtained on 25.11.2013 and ultimately, the Government had passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2014, imposing the punishment of removal from service. Challenging the said order of punishment, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following four grounds, challenging the impugned order:-

(i) The impugned order of punishment is not only a non-speaking order, but also lacks application of mind, since the disciplinary authority had extracted the findings of the enquiry officer, as well as the advice of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and without any discussion, had imposed the major punishment.

(ii) There is a procedural irregularity in the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. When the enquiry officer had found all the charges as 'not proved', the disciplinary authority had chosen to deviate from the findings. Though the deviation notice was given calling for the petitioner's objections, no reasonings have been assigned in the said notice for such deviation from the findings of the enquiry officer.

(iii) When the view of the TNPSC are obtained, there is a duty cast on the disciplinary authority to render his findings with regard to the enquiry conducted and thereafter pass final orders, which procedure has not been followed.

(iv) There is a inordinate delay of 7 years from the initiation of the departmental proceedings till the final order was passed.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that all the procedures contemplated for conduct of departmental proceedings have been scrupulously followed and there is no infirmity in the procedures. He further submitted that the first respondent herein had considered the charges, findings of the enquiry officer, as well as the explanation rendered by the petitioner and after obtai