Executive Officer empowered under HR&CE Act Rule 14 to implement disciplinary actions; failure to prove enquiry participation upholds dismissal.

ORDER :

N. Senthilkumar, J.

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in R.P.No.128/2014 D2 dated 31.07.2015 on the file of the first Respondent viz, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept., Chennai-34 and to quash the same.

2.1.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1978 and served as Accountant in Arulmighu Nainar Kulasekara Vinayagar Thirukoil, Aralvaimozhi. After Mr.Ramasubbu became Executive Officer in 1998, the petitioner was harassed. From the year of 2000 onwards, the petitioner was not assigned any work, however, the Executive Officer issued a letter dated 05.10.2000 alleging that the lease amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the lessees has not been accounted in the temple accounts. For the said allegation, the petitioner replied on 09.10.2000 stating that he had neither collected nor received the said amount. Thereafter, the Executive Officer issued a charge memo on 29.03.2001 by framing 8 charges, including the above claim of unaccounted lease amount, even though the said amount has been paid later to the temple directly by the lessees.

2.2.Another charge memo dated 30.03.2001 was also issued reiterating the same allegations. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 12.04.2001 denying all charges. Thereafter, four additional charges were framed against the petitioner on 25.02.2003 and the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 03.03.2003 seeking exoneration from all the charges. However, the Executive Officer by proceedings dated 17.07.2003 treated the petitioner as he had resigned from the service, pursuant to the letter dated 15.07.2003 and the petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,19,359.91 by the said proceedings.

2.3.The petitioner informed the Joint Commissioner by letter dated 19.07.2003 that he had not submitted any resignation letter, based upon which the Joint Commissioner issued a direction to the 3rdRespondent, to keep all his actions in abeyance by letter dated 19.07.2003 in Na.Ka.No.14032/03-2, B-2. However, the alleged resignation letter copy was never furnished to the petitioner so far. Inspite of directions issued by the Joint Commissioner, the Executive Officer initiated surcharge proceedings on 21.07.2003, even though he had no jurisdiction under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, as the amounts were collected and audited. After the explanation of the petitioner dated 11.08.2003, the Executive Officer issued a telegram, directing him to rejoin duty on 10.12.2003, but the petitioner was not paid salary for the period from July to December 2003.

2.4.On 09.03.2004, the petitioner was suddenly suspended and asked to appear for an enquiry, scheduled on 29.03.2004. Meanwhile, the petitioner informed the Executive Officer on 27.03.2004 that he had already filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner. Despite attending the enquiry on 29.03.2004, 12.04.2004, 23.09.2004 and 07.10.2004, the Executive Officer repeatedly adjourned and failed to conduct the enquiry. Without conducting any proper enquiry, the Executive Officer issued an order dated 26.10.2004 dismissing the petitioner from service, stating that the petitioner had neither submitted any explanation nor appeared for the enquiry, even though explanations had been submitted and acknowledged.

2.5.It is his further contention that the Executive Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. However, the petitioner’s appeal to the Joint Commissioner was dismissed, without considering his documents and he also preferred Revision before the first respondent, which was also dismissed in R.P.No.128/2014 D2 dated 31.07.2015 on the ground that original documents had not been filed in the i