IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.25993 of 2015 D.Selvanayagam ...Petitioner Vs

1.The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur – 621 212. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.01.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.C2/6423/2013 of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to pay interest for the delayed payment of pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondents For RR1 to 3 : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 27.01.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.C2/6423/2013, imposing a punishment for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,14,418/- from the petitioner's Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and to withdraw a sum of Rs.100/- for a period of 30 months from the petitioner's monthly pension and for consequential direction to the second respondent to pay interest for the delayed payment of pensionary benefits with costs. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) under the control of the second respondent on 29.06.1987 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant in the year June 2001 and further, was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the office of the third respondent on 01.06.2011. The petitioner due was to superannuate on 31.05.2013. Prior to the said date, he was placed under suspension on 30.05.2013 and by another letter dated 31.05.2013, the second respondent did not allow the petitioner to retire from service and the services of the petitioner was retained under Fundamental Rule.56(1)(c) contemplating Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal)

Rules (herein after referred to 'Rules').

3. Pursuant to which on 31.05.2013, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) and the following four charges were framed:

Fww; r;rhlL; vz;/1/

2011?2012 y; eilbgww; fye;jhat; py; ,yhlgu[ k;

Jtf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah; gzpaplk; fhypgzpaplkhf mwptpj;jJ/

Fww; r;rhlL; vz;/2/

murhy; mDkjp mspf;fg;glhj ,yhlgu[ k; Jtf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy.; 2011?2012y; eilbgww; fye;jhat; pd; nghJ ,yhlgu[ k; Jtf;fg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;

gzpaplk; epug;ggg; ll; J/

Fww; r;rhlL; vz;/3/

cah; mYtyuhd khtll; Mjpjpuhtplh; kw;Wk; gH';Foapdh; ey mYtyUf;F jtwhd tHpf;fhl;Ljy; Vwg; Lj;jp je;jJ/

Fww; r;rhlL; vz;/4/

muR gzpf;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;jJ/

4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges on 06.06.2013.

Not satisfied with the reply, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Pursuant to the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 04.11.2013. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, pursuant to which a second show cause notice was issued on the petitioner on 04.11.2013. After, the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 18.11.2013, the second respondent by impugned order dated 27.01.2015 imposed the punishment for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,14,408/- from the DCRG for the monetary loss caused by the petitioner and to deduct a sum of Rs.100/- from the pension for a period of 30 months. Challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he has preferred the above Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, submitted that when there was no loss caused by the petitioner to the exchequer, the impugned order imposed for deducting a sum of Rs.1,14,408/- from the DCRG is not sustainable. The learned counsel further contended that in fact, the entire proceedings emanated