Disciplinary actions must be supported by substantial evidence, especially when a criminal acquittal exists for the same charges.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the G.O.(D)No.249 dated 29.11.2019 and G.O.(D)No.605 dated 05.11.2013 passed by the first respondent by confirming the order in proceedings No.E1/235/2003 dated 01.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and quash the same is illegal, improper against the law and natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to his service with effect from 19.12.2002 and pay back all the service benefits to the petitioner immediately and pass such further orders.

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the G.O.(D)No.249 dated 29.11.2019 and G.O.(D)No.605 dated 05.11.2013 passed by the first respondent by confirming the order in proceedings No.E1/235/2003 dated 01.09.2008 passed by the second respondent and quash the same is illegal and thereby directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his service with effect from 19.12.2002 and pay back all the service benefits to the petitioner immediately.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Office Assistant on 13.07.1964 and worked in the Commercial Taxes office, Dharmapuri District, which comes under the jurisdiction of Assistant commissioner (CT), the 3rd respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from service by proceedings in Na.Ka.2124/2002/A1 dated 19.12.2002. A charge memo in RC.No.8124/02/A1 dated 30.10.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent by framing two charges against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner gave detailed explanation for the charge memo issued by the 3rd respondent. Based on the inquiry report, the 2nd respondent called for an explanation vide Memo No.E1/235/2003 dated 14.07.2004. After receipt of the above said memo, the 2nd respondent passed the order of dismissal dated 01.09.2008 vide proceedings in No.E1/235/2003 by removing the petitioner from service. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent on 23.12.2008 and his appeal was dismissed on 05.11.2013 vide G.O.(D)No.605 by confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 01.09.2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent on 17.05.2017 and the same was rejected by the 1st respondent on 29.11.2019, vide in his proceedings in G.O.(D)No.249 Commercial Taxes and Registration (1) Department. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a charge memo dated 30.10.2003 in Na.Ka.8124/2002/Al was issued by the 3rd respondent by framing two charges against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. Based on which, the petitioner was suspended from service by proceedings in Na.Ka.2124/2002/A1 dated 19.12.2002. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued a charge memo dated 30.10.2003 in Na.Ka.8124/2002/Al under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner gave his detailed explanation to the respondents. The respondents were not satisfied with his explanation and appointed inquiry officer, namely, Thiru.Karunakaran, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Palacode on 03.12.2003 and he conducted the inquiry and gave an erroneous finding. The charges were proved without any supportive materials, records or evidence.

4. Based on the inquiry report, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner for an explanation vide Memo No.E1/235/2003 dated 14.07.2004. After receipt of the above said memo, the petitioner gave his detailed explanation along with affidavit of said Kannammal executed in August 2004. After receipt of the above explanation, the 2nd respondent without considering or discussing his explanation given before the inquiry officer as well a