O R D E R

The writ on hand has been filed, questioning the validity of the order of removal from service issued in proceedings dated 01.10.2013 by the 2nd respondent / the Chief Director, Highways Department.

2. The writ petitioner states that he was appointed as Road Inspector Grade-II at Nellikuppam Panchayat Union by Divisional Engineer through District Employment Exchange. He was promoted as Draftsman Grade-III in the year 1970. On 21.07.1973, the petitioner completed his probation in the post of Draftsman Grade-II with effect from 21.07.1972. Thereafter, he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) on 21.05.1975 and appointed as Supervisor in Tamil Nadu Highways Engineering Service. On 08.01.1983, he had completed his probation as Junior Engineer. He was transferred to Thirunelveli Division, as a Junior Engineer on 26.11.1983 and a joining report was sent by the Superintending Engineer. On 07.12.1983, the petitioner was transferred to Manur. He was enrolled as a member in Special Provident Fund-cum-

Gratuity Scheme.

3. On 10.05.1984, the petitioner applied for Medical Leave. On completion of Medical Leave, he applied leave on account of certain family circumstances. The petitioner states that he applied for leave on 09.06.1984, 15.06.1984 and 22.10.1984. On 02.05.1989, the petitioner expressed his willingness to rejoin duty. However, there was no reply from the Department. Thereafter, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on

31.05.2006 on attaining age of 58 years.

4. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner on

30.12.2010, submitted an application for pension. However, there was no reply from the Superintending Engineer, Thirunelveli. The petitioner submitted an application to the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu on 31.12.2010. On 31.01.2011, the Superintending Engineer sought for clarification for the purpose of taking action on the representation submitted by the writ petitioner. The petitioner sought for the particulars of his Service Records. On 28.03.2011, the Superintending Engineer rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of terminal benefits as Service Records were not available. He made a representation on 06.08.2011 to the Chief Minister's Cell. The respondents could not able to trace out the Service Records of the writ petitioner and therefore, no action was taken. Through letter dated 01.10.2013, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a charge memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 29.05.2006. The petitioner states that no charge memo was served on him and no explanation was given by him nor he was put on notice about enquiry. The petitioner states that he was straight away removed from service.

5. The details regarding enquiry also had not been furnished to the writ petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that based on the exparte enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. The charge memo has not been served to him. Based on the exparte enquiry, the major penalty was imposed. That apart, the petitioner had already completed the qualifying services of about 16 years and therefore, he is entitled for pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It is contended that the exparte enquiry conducted by the respondents are vitiated by the principles of natural justice and therefore, the petitioner must be allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006 and all his pensionary and retirement benefits are to be settled.

7. The respondents objected the said contention by stating that the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer, entered on leave from 20.10.1983 without prior permission and with no proper intimation to the Department. He continued on leave till the date of his retirement and had not reported to duty even on the date of his retirement i.e. on 31.05