IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fairness in treatment and the limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice, or violation of principles of natural justice in judicial review.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ on direction to call for the records on the file of 1st Respondent proceeding in R.O.C. No. 98909/2017/C1, dated 27.08.2019 and quash the same illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to take appropriate steps to ensure payment of service benefits to the petitioner.

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to set aside the Order of dismissal passed in R.O.C. No. 98909/2017/C1, dated 27.08.2019 and quash the same and to further direct the respondents to release payment of service benefits to the petitioner.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition is as follows.

3. The petitioner while serving as a Senior Bailiff, served with a charge memo dated 27.10.2015, which contains the following charges:

“Charge-I

Thiru. P. Panneer, Senior Bailiff, Sub Court, Uthangarai have made corruption by receiving money of Rs. 54,000/- on 05.06.2012, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 03.09.2012 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.02.2014 from one Tmt. S. Kuppammal W/o Tamilalagan, Dharmapuri for making employment as Examiner in the Krishnagiri Judicial Department thereby he have not followed integrity and devotion in duty, thereby committed misconduct and violating the Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973.

Charge-II

Thiru. P. Panneer, Senior Bailiff, Sub Court, Uthangarai have made corruption by receiving money of Rs. 68,500/- on 05.08.2011 from one Thiru. G. Mani for making employment to his daughter viz. Sabitha in the Krishnagiri Judicial Department as Xerox Operator and also received Rs. 68,500/- each from several others by giving assurance to make employment as Xerox Operator in Krishnagiri Judicial Department thereby he have not followed integrity and devotion in duty, thereby committed misconduct and violating the Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973.

Charge-III

Thiru. P. Panneer, Senior Bailiff, Sub Court, Uthangarai have made corruption by receiving money of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 23.10.2013 from one Thiru. M. Jaganathan trhough Advocate Mr. Thamilalagan, Dharmapuri, and on 05.11.2013 received again Rs. 50,000/- directly from the said Thiru. M. Jaganathan for making employment to his daughter viz. Tmt.Prabavathy in the Krishnagiri Judicial Department as Computer Operator thereby he have not followed integrity and devotion in duty, thereby committed misconduct and violating the Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973.

Charge-IV

Thiru. P. Panneer, Senior Bailiff, Sub Court, Uthangarai have borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- from one Thiru. Gokulesh S/o Ganesan by violating the Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973.

Charge-V

Thiru. P. Panneer, Senior Bailiff, Sub Court, Uthangarai have misusing the Official capacity and misusing the name of Thiru. C. Chinnappan, then Disciplinary Authority/Prinicpal District Judge, Krishnagiri and cheating one Kuppammal W/o Tamilalagan by giving assurance for employment in Krishnagiri Judicial Department thereby committed misconduct and violating the Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973.”

4. The writ petitioner submitted his written statement on 18.11.2015 denying the charges. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority/Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner herein. Before the Enquiry Officer, CW-1 to CW-8 were examined and Exs. C.1 to C.10 were marked on the side of the Department and on the side of the delinquent no witnesses or exhibits were produced, even though, in the written statement, he has relied on certain documents. After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 08.03.2016, stating that all the charges framed against the petitioner herein are proved. The Disciplinary Aut