The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision for removal from service based on proven misappropriation, affirming the fairness of the enquiry process despite procedural challenges.

ORDER :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 30.11.2023 imposing the punishment of removal from service.

2. According to the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2002 and was subsequently promoted as Head Clerk, NDPS Court, Chennai on 18.04.2019. The petitioner was assigned duties as Head Clerk (Property). On several allegations, including the non-remittance of the amounts collected by the petitioner in the RBI to the tune of nearly around Rs.15,00,000/-, a charge memo came to be issued on 01.09.2022.

3. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 06.10.2022 and not satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed. Pursuant to the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 28.04.2023, holding that the charges as against the petitioner stood proved. The second respondent / disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and had imposed the punishment of removal from service.

4. Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only due to the reason of the covid pandemic, as explained by the petitioner even in the reply, the amounts received were not remitted in time and that cannot be construed as misappropriation. He further contended that separate charges were not framed and therefore the entire proceedings stand vitiated.

5. It is also his further contention that the enquiry officer, who ought to have been only made as a witness had been entrusted to enquire into the charges, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also his further contention that the co-delinquent had been exonerated and had been arrayed as a witness, which is not justifiable and cannot be sustained.

6. Per contra, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondents contended that, the petitioner who was entrusted with the duty as Head Clerk (Property), though had collected money to the tune of nearly Rs.15,00,000/-, had utilised the same for his personal requirements and only after the counsel filed memos, Registers were checked and after it came to light that the petitioner had in fact collected the amounts and only thereafter these amounts had been remitted back after holding them for nearly more than a year and in one case nearly after two years.

7. It is his further contention that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and gave his no objection for the enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and after an elaborate enquiry and after considering the materials, the enquiry officer had submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority, having concurred with the findings, had imposed the appropriate punishment and the petitioner who had also not chosen to avail the remedy of appeal, had not made out any flaw in the enquiry and therefore the punishment imposed is justified and sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

8. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

9. The petitioner, while working as Head Clerk (Property) in the NDPS Court, Chennai, was entrusted with the duty of collecting fine amounts and maintenance of the records. On certain allegations in respect of the non-remittance of the amounts collected by the petitioner into the RBI to the tune of nearly Rs.15,00,000/- on various dates, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.03.2022 and a charge memo came to be issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 on 01.09.2022.

10. The detailed charge is that a sum of Rs,7,06,800/- collected on 12.08.2020 was retained for more than a year; a sum of Rs.3,14,210/- collected from 06.07.2021 to 28.07.2021 was retained for more than a month; and a sum of Rs.4,94,380/- collected from 17.06.2020 to 07.10.2021, has been retained for nearly 2 years before remitting into the RBI and also has not maintained the 'A' Regist