C O M M O N O R D E R

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned punishment orders issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) Nos.518, 517 & 515, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 29.12.2011 and the consequential order passed by the fourth respondent in Na Ka No.11797/2011/MR1, dated 30.12.2011 and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in W.P.No.2575 of 2012 into service with all consequential attendant benefits and to direct the respondents to settle all the terminal benefits, including pension and arrears of pension with all consequential attendant benefits to the petitioner in W.P.No.2993 of 2012. 2.Since the lis raised in these Writ Petitions are one and the same all were heard together and disposed of by a common order.

3.Heard, Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1138 of 2012 and Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2575 & 2993 of 2012. Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 in all the Petitions, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in all the Petitions and Mr.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent in W.P.No.1138 of

2012.

4.Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.1138 of 2012 would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Works Inspector in Pollachi Municipality dated 01.11.1995 on compassionate grounds. He would contend that the petitioner was promoted as a Draughtsman in 1997 and subsequently as Junior Engineer in 2004. He would submit that the petitioner was charged with a charge memo in Na.Ka.No.C1/7/26/2001, dated 17.07.2001, while he was in service of Pollachi Municipality from 1997 to 2000 and the same was served on to the petitioner on 08.08.2001. He would submit that the petitioner has given his explanation dated 20.08.2001 along with the details showing the settlement of Indravikas Patram to the parties concerned to the tune of Rs.24,050/-, and the same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and no further action was taken by the Commissioner on the charge memo dated 17.07.2001.

5.He would submit that during enquiry and Disciplinary Proceedings there was no document produced to show that the petitioner being the Draughtsman alone was responsible for misappropriation of the IVP bonds, and there were no evidence to prove that the security bonds were removed from the possession of the petitioner. He would submit that the entries were verified and counter singed by the Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and then the IVP Bonds would be handed over to the cash section for custody, this was confirmed by the statement given by P.W.16, who was the Manager of Pollachi Municipality. He would submit that the order of punishment of removal from service issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.518, MAWS Department, dated 29.12.2011 and the consequential order issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 11797/ 2011/MC1 dated 30.12.2011 are illegal and liable to be interfered with.

6.Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2575 & 2993 of 2012 would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.2575 of 2012 was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 09.08.1985 and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant on 13.11.2000 and was posted as Cashier in the third respondent Municipality and was given additional charge to work in 'B1' seat of the Accounts Section. He would contend that during the year 1999-2000 when the new accounting system was introduced, the Cash Section responsibility was not allocated to the petitioner and she was transferred from the post of Cashier to the post of Revenue Inspector on

20.07.2001.

7.He would submit that one C.K.Gopalan was working as Shroff from the year 1989 till 03.11.1999, thereafter one