O R D E R

The petitioner herein, while employed as an Agricultural Development Officer, was imputed with a charge memo dated 29.09.2008, alleging that he had failed to conduct Farmers Field School Trainings under the Integrated Cereals Development Programme (ICDP) in four villages during the year 2002-2003 and 6 villages in the year 2003-04 and created false records as if the trainings were conducted and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.29,265/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) under the expenses for tea, refreshments and ICDP kits. The enquiry was conducted by one A.Muthukrishnan, who had submitted his enquiry report on 29.05.2013 The further representation of the petitioner was made on 07.02.2015, to raising objections to the enquiry report.

2. On consideration of the petitioner's further explanation dated

07.02.2015, the Government had proposed to impose a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of 18 months without cumulative effect on 23.12.2016. However, based on the Advisory Department's recommendations, it was proposed to impose a major punishment of compulsory retirement, Thereafter, since, there was no progress in the disciplinary action, a writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner and this Court, by its order dated 06.06.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.11969 of 2018, directed the respondents herein to pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks. However, the respondents had sought for the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as 'TNPSC') only on 08.02.2019 and accordingly, the recommendations of TNPSC was made on 08.05.2019, affirming the proposal of the respondents to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. Consequently, the impugned order on 17.07.2019 came to be passed, by compulsorily retiring the petitioner herein. This order of punishment is put under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following three grounds: (a) the Enquiry Officer, Mr.A. Muthukrishnan is biased, since the petitioner had earlier pointed out the financial loss that had occurred to the Department owing to the Enquiry Officer's negligence, consequent to which, a sum of Rs.81,570/- was recovered from the Enquiry Officer; (b)The impugned order of punishment is not on independent appraisal of the facts of the case, but a mere reliance on the views of the TNPSC; and the disciplinary proceedings is vitiated since it was not concluded within the time prescribed by this Court in the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.

11969 of 2018.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on the counter affidavits and submitted that the petitioner herein had not raised the ground of 'bias' in the initial stages of enquiry. According to him, the respondents are bound by the views of the TNPSC and in view of the recommendations of the Advisory Boards as well as TNPSC, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. Insofar as ground (a) of 'Bias' raised by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner in his additional affidavit, had stated that the Enquiry Officer viz. Mr.A.Muthukrishnan, while holding the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, had caused financial losses to the Department and this was pointed out by the petitioner to the Government in his report, dated 06.09.2010. Consequently, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Sivagangai, in his proceedings dated 09.05.2013 has issued an order of recovery against the Enquiry Officer and accordingly the amount of Rs.81,570/- was also recovered on 15.05.2013. The only objection raised by the respondents is that this ground of 'bias' was not raised by the petitioner during the course of inquiry. The learned counsel however, would state that the factum of his complaint against the Enquiry Officer was not known when the enquiry