IMPORTANT POINT
In disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the charged officer to disprove allegations, and adherence to natural justice is essential for valid outcomes.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

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 in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.359, Public (Special-A) Department dated 19.06.2023 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with all service and monetary benefits and grant such other further relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX:

The writ petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge by direct recruitment in the year 1999. He was promoted as Subordinate Judge in the year 2010 and further promoted to the post of District Judge in the year 2015.

2. A charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules read with Rule 6(4)(a)(i) and Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973 in proceedings dated 25.02.2021. Serious misconduct of deposit of huge sum of cash credit, suspicious transactions in his bank accounts and of his family members, and for purchase of properties without prior permission are set forth. On 12.03.2021, the delinquent Officer submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges and imputations. On 14.06.2021 the Hon'ble Administrative Committee resolved to appoint an Enquiring Judge to conduct departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner.

3. On 09.01.2021, the Presenting Officer marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 to prove the charges levelled against the writ petitioner. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Department has no witness to examine, since the nature of charges are relating to documents and the documents produced by the Department would be sufficient to prove the charges. The delinquent Officer had no objection for marking the documents by the Presenting Officer without examining any witnesses. The delinquent Officer has marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D42 and examined DW1 to DW8 as witnesses to disprove the charges.

4. The enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the delinquent Officer. The learned Enquiring Judge submitted his final report on 02.08.2022 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been duly proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority has furnished the copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent Officer on 06.09.2022 and called for his further representation on the findings rendered by the learned Enquiring Judge. The delinquent Officer made further representations on 27.09.2022 and 25.09.2022 to furnish certain copies of documents marked during departmental enquiry as defence side exhibits and sought for further time of 15 days to submit additional objections. Accordingly, the documents sought by the delinquent Officer, which were marked as Ex.D6 and Ex.D36 were furnished to him on 03.11.2022 and extension of time was granted to submit further representation. The delinquent Officer has made representations to furnish certain copies of orders to ascertain the decision taken on his earlier requisitions and also to get remedy by preferring appeal or revision or review and to drop further proceedings against him and for consequential reinstatement into service. The representations were made on 16.11.2022, 08.01.2023 and 19.01.2023.

5. On 06.03.2022, the Hon'ble Administrative Committee has resolved to reject representation for furnishing of certain documents, which were not formed part of the disciplinary proceedings. The Hon'ble Administrative Committee has unanimously resolved to accept the report of the learned Enquiring Judge and recommended to impose punishment of compulsory retirement, subject to approval of the Hon'ble Full Court. On 11.04.2023, the Hon'ble Full Court, by majority, has resolved to defer from the decision taken by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee and resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the Registrar Gener