O R D E R

(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)

The present writ petition has been filed by the Head Clerk of Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur challenging the order of imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

2.The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

(i)The writ petitioner was working as Head Clerk at Principal District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur in the year 2002. On 28.10.2002, one Advocate by name Mr.G.Ramasamy had filed four plaints before the said Court. Those plaints were not taken on file and as per the endorsement in C.R.19 Register, they were returned on 31.10.2002. When the said counsel had approached the officer for taking back his returned plaint, he found that two of the plaints were missing and the original pro-notes annexed to the other two plaints were also missing. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur on 31.12.2002.

(ii)Based upon the said complaint, a memo was issued to the writ petitioner on 16.06.2003 calling for explanation. The writ petitioner had submitted his explanation on 02.07.2003. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, a charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner on 30.09.2003 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In the charge memo the petitioner was charged with the misconduct of gross dereliction of duty for missing of two plaints and missing of two pro-notes in other two plaints. The petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence contending that the Assistant Head Clerk one S.Renganayaki who had been deputed from the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur was in-charge of return and safe custody of the plaint. In fact, after returning the plaint on 31.10.2002, he was on leave between 01.11.2002 to 04.11.2002. Hence, he was not responsible for missing of two plaints or the pro-notes annexed to the other two plaints.

(iii)The Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After considering the oral and documentary evidence let in on either side, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding that no other employee was instructed to handle the plaint copies as contended by the delinquent.

(iv)The delinquent alone had verified the plaint and made the return endorsement. The Enquiry Officer further found that the delinquent has not chosen to examine himself or any one else to establish that the plaint copies were handed over to the Assistant Head Clerk. The Enquiry Officer further relied upon the evidence of the learned District Munsif and arrived at a finding that no one was placed in-charge of Assistant Head Clerk post by way of oral directions as contended by the delinquent.

(v)The Enquiry Officer further found that till a complaint was lodged by the concerned counsel on 31.12.2002, the delinquent had not brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer with regard to the missing of the plaint and the pro-notes. Based upon the said findings, the Enquiry Officer found that the delinquent has guilty of misconduct. The first respondent herein who is the Disciplinary Authority after considering the Enquiry Report in detail had imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the writ petitioner by his proceedings dated 19.12.2005.

(vi)Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondents herein. The second respondent under the impugned order dated 01.11.2007 has confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the first respondent. Challenging these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.Contentions of the learned counsels:

(i)The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not taken into consideration the fact that one Renganayaki was placed in-charge as Assistant Head Clerk during the relevant point of time from Additional Dis