Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules, and inconsistent penalties for similar offenses are impermissible under principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.04.2004 passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, and also to the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the first respondent, whereby the order of removal from service was modified to one of compulsory retirement.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Accountant, Sub Treasury, Coimbatore, and Personal Superintendent, Pay and Accounts Office, Central Chennai, was issued with a charge memo dated 16.07.2001. The charge memo issued against the petitioner reads as follows:

Charge No.1

In connection with the fake bills listed in Serial No. 4 of Annexure 3, Sub-Treasury records, he failed to verify the specimen signature of the disbursing officer maintained in the office-with the signature affixed on the submitted bills. By failing to do so, he colluded with the concerned disbursing staff and facilitated the approval of fake bills.

Charge No.2

He failed to comply with the instructions issued by the Director of Treasury Accounts, listed in Serial No. 2 of Annexure 3, which were intended to prevent fraudulent disbursement and misappropriation of funds.

Charge No.3

Even though the relevant portion of the register under Tamil Nadu Treasury Code Rule 70 (T.N.T.C. 70) had been pasted with a slip for attention, and despite the documents being tampered with under suspicious circumstances, he failed to properly audit and return the bills for correction.

Charge No.4

Despite being aware that certain pages in the register maintained under Tamil Nadu Treasury Code Rule 70 (T.N.T.C. 70) had been removed, replaced with other sheets, and that the Tamil and English versions of the rules and register pages had been altered and stitched in a manner contrary to procedures, the accused approved the related bills. By doing so, he violated the rules and colluded in the misappropriation of government funds.

Charge No.5

In his capacity as a responsible official of the Treasury Accounts Department, the accused failed to carry out even the most basic and essential audit procedures while processing the bills.

Charge No.6

The accused conducted himself in a negligent and indifferent manner towards government duties. Despite being expected to perform his responsibilities diligently as a senior government servant, he failed to discharge his duties properly.

Charge No.7

During his tenure at the Sub-Treasury, Chidambaram, from 26.04.1992 to 31.10.1992, the accused was responsible for financial loss to the Government amounting to ?1,33,506/- due to the aforementioned lapses.

3. The charge memo was accompanied by a list of documentary evidence; however, it did not contain a list of witnesses to be examined. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the charges. The said explanation was found unsatisfactory and, therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report stating that all the charges against the petitioner stood proved.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted and why appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted an explanation contending that the allegations were not supported by any documentary or oral evidence and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were based on surmises and conjectures.

5. The Disciplinary Authority, relying on the charge memo and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, passed an order dismissing t