The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings lies with the employer, and findings based on insufficient evidence are unsustainable.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

While the petitioner and another were working as Revenue Inspector and VAO of Panakudi Firka, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo dated 16.12.2005 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (hereinafter referred as 'TDP') containing a solitary charge against the petitioner and another delinquent employee namely P.Koilraj, Village Administrative Officer. The said charge reads as under:

“Charge:

That while you were Working as Revenue Inspector Panagudi, (A.O.1), and you (A.O.2), were working as Village Administrative Officer, Parivirisooriyan Village, actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position and authority, initially demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe from Tr.M.Maninadar s/o. Muthiah Nadar, 36, Main Road, Thalavaipuram Village, Panagudi Post and finally reduced the demand to Rs.3000/- on 29.03.2001 at about 10.00 hours at your office (A.O.1) for releasing his tractor and trailer, which were detained for quarrying silt from Veerapandian gulam in Parivirisooriyan village in Radhapuram Taluk without any ease and accepted the amount of Rs.3000/- on 30.03.2001 at about 09.30 hours at your officer (A.O.1) and thereby you (A.O.1 and A.O.2)have exhibited lack of integrity in public service.”

2. It was thereafter, the petitioner was placed on defence before the TDP, and he has denied the charge levelled against him. The TDP, after having conducted an enquiry into the matter, submitted its report on 01.11.2006 and thereafter, a copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his further explanation on 08.06.2007. It was thereafter, the Government issued orders in G.O.(2D).No.565, Revenue [Ser 3(1)] Department, dated 27.09.2010, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Madurai Bench of this Court by filing W.P.(MD).No.7552 of 2011, and a co-ordinate bench of this Court, by an order dated 08.07.2011, was pleased to set aside the order dated 27.09.2010, while granting liberty to the Government to pass a detailed and speaking order by considering the defence set up by the petitioner in his further representation dated 08.06.2007 against the report of the enquiry officer. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“6. In view of the above settled legal position, and as there is a manifest illegality in the impugned order, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to pass a detailed and speaking order with reference to the defence put up by the petitioner, in the further representation on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, within a period of8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

It was thereafter, the Government passed another order vide G.O.(2D).No.97, Revenue [Ser 3(1)], Department, dated 09.03.2012, once again imposing the very same punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect on the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 09.03.2012, the petitioner approached this Court once again by filing the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, inspite of this Court setting aside the earlier order of punishment dated 08.07.2011 on the ground that the further rep