O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of 1st respondent passed in G.O.D(3).165 Agriculture AA6, dated 11.07.2005 and consequently, to direct the respondents to give the petitioner consequential service benefits including promotion with retrospective effect without loss of seniority in terms of order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1195 of 1981, dated 21.02.1992, as per panel in G.O.Ms.No. 1026/AE III/, dated 11.05.1988 and also, to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 04.08.1981 to 23.10.1984 as duty in terms of High Court in W.P.No.3004 of 1983, dated 30.01.1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while was working as Junior Engineer (A.E.), Kamuthi, was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 04.08.1981, then charge memo dated 24.08.1981 under 17(b) of the CCA Rules was issued to submit explanation within 21 days and the allegation is that the petitioner had deliberately arrived at double & triple the quantity of earthwork and thereby recorded incorrect measurements for earthwork excavation during the formation of percolation ponds at Maraikulam and Keelathooval villages. The petitioner submitted a letter to the 3rd respondent and requested him to serve the copies of the band measurement taken by him on 15.07.1981 and the Inspection made by the Junior Engineer Kariapatty on 01.08.1981.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent deliberately refused to serve the copies of the measurements taken by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently the 3rd respectively through reply letter dated 07.01.1982, stated that he had not recorded measurements of earth-work excavation and the Junior Engineer, Kariyapatti also had not taken any measurements. From the above letter the 3rd respondent admitted that they had not conducted any inspection and they had not noted any measurements to that effect. Therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner is baseless but framed with an intention to penalize the petitioner. The 3rd respondent conducted the enquiry proceedings on 05.08.1982, which is against the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the enquiry officer one Mr.Ramachandran had conducted the enquiry proceedings on 23.01.1984. The 3rd respondent being the vital witness did not attend the enquiry and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross examine the 3rd respondent. The petitioner further contended that the copy of enquiry report was not served to the petitioner and without getting any further explanation from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the punishment order, dated 07.12.1984, stating that the increment is withheld for two years with cumulative effect and it will not affect the pensionary benefits. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 04.03.1985 to the 1st respondent. The TNPSC opined in its letter, dated 03.04.1991, stating that the entire proceedings and the punishment order is contrary to the service Rules and categorically stated that the charges framed against the petitioner is baseless. Therefore, the Commission recommended to set aside the punishment order. Based on the commission letter, dated 03.04.1991, the 1st respondent passed G.O. (D) No. 132 Agriculture (AA II) setting aside the punishment order issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently, directed the 2nd respondent to conduct a denova enquiry. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition on 24.03.2002 on the ground that the denova enquiry is contrary to the Rules and the principles of natural justice. Without considering any evidence on record and without considering the case on merits, the 1st respondent passed final order in the Revision Petition in G.O. (2D)No.124, dated 18.11.1996, stating that they have already ordered for denova enquiry and therefore, the Revision Petition was closed.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the order is a non- speak