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 of the first respondent pertaining to its proceedings in G.O.(D).No.706, MA & WS Department and that of the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11270/2005/A4 and quash the orders dated 09.12.2015 and 05.01.2008 respectively and consequently direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to duly retire from his service along with all his pensionary benefits along with an interest at the rate of 18% from 30.06.2005.]

1. Heard Mr.R. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Shahjahan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. Among the 8 charges levelled against the petitioner herein, the first charge relates to an incident of issuance of No Objection Certificates on 26.07.2002. The petitioner, who was due to retire on 30.06.2005, was placed under suspension and a Charge Memo was also issued on 29.06.2005. Pursuant to the Charge Memo, whereby the charges 1 to 4 were held as 'not proved' and the charges 5 to 8 were held as 'proved', the Disciplinary Authority, after calling for further explanation for the purpose of deviating from the findings of the Inquiry Officer, had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 05.01.2008. The punishment came to be confirmed in appeal by the first respondent on 19.03.2008. Thereafter, when the petitioner had challenged the punishment order before this Court in W.P.No.24772 of 2011, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 30.08.2013, as against which, he had filed an appeal in W.A.No.2306 of 2013 and by an order dated 25.08.2014, the Hon'ble Division Bench had placed reliance on Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and had found that the Appellate Authority had not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 23 and therefore, this Court had remitted back the matter to the first respondent herein. In consequence to such remittance, the present impugned order dated 09.12.2015 has been passed, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner predominantly raised a ground that when the petitioner had given a reasoning in his further explanations with regard to the factual mistakes in the charges, the same were not addressed by the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Government Orders and circulars, the date referred to in charge No.1 as 30.06.2002 refers only to the last date of application and therefore, issuance of No Objection Certificates after 30.06.2002, cannot be an infirmity. The learned counsel also submitted that 53 “No Objection Certificates” granted by the petitioner was pursuant to the resolution passed by the Council on the forenoon of 01.07.2002, whereas, he had joined duty on the forenoon of the same day and therefore, the grant of all 53 “No Objection Certificates”, was pursuant to the resolution, passed by the Council. This apart, he also submitted that when all these aspects were referred to in his grounds of appeal and the Hon'ble Division Bench had also specifically directed the Appellate Authority to address the grounds before taking a final decision, the present impugned order does not make a reference to the objections raised by him in his further explanation and therefore, the order itself is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by placing reliance on the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority, submitted that the impugned order is a speaking order, which is in compliance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 23 of the Rules. The learned Special Government Pleader also drew attention of this Court to the portion of the impugned order, wherein, the Appellate Authority had dealt with the charge