Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District.2.The District Revenue Officer,O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District v. M. Anbu2. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22-04-2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARANWRIT PETITIION NO.35701 OF 2004andWPMP.No.42994 OF 20041. The Revenue Divisional Officer,O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District.2.The District Revenue Officer,O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District... PetitionersVs.1. M. Anbu2. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the recordspertaining to the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,dated 13.11.2003 made in O.A.No.3736 of 2000 and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.M. Dhandapani Special Govt. PleaderFor Respondent-1: Mr.M. RaviO R D E RHeard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.2. The present writ petition has been filed by theGovernment officials against the order dated 13.11.2003 passed inO.A.No.3736 of 2000, wherein the Tribunal has set aside thepunishment of dismissal and modified the same to stoppage ofincrement for 5 years with cumulative effect and further directedthat no backwages would be payable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The present Respondent No.1 was employed as a VillageAdministrative Officer in Ariyur village. A departmentalproceeding was initiated against him as per the charge memo dated3.12.1999. The departmental authorities, on the basis of theenquiry report, found that all the five charges had been provedand passed an order of dismissal by order dated 4.4.2000. Suchorder came to be challenged in O.A.No.3736 of 2000. In brief thecharges were to the following effect :-Charge No.1 - The delinquent had not been residingwithin the jurisdiction village.Charge No.2 - The delinquent had absented himselffrom duty on 5.11.1996, 6.11.1996 and 9.11.1996 duringthe time when the Deputy Tahsildar had visited thevillage.Charge No.3 - Out of 17 receipt books entrusted tothe delinquent, he returned 16 books but had failed toreturn one receipt book.Charge Nos.4 & 5 - The delinquent hadmisappropriated a sum of Rs.56,211/- and remitted suchamount only belatedly.4. The Tribunal in its judgment found that Charge Nos.1and 2 had been proved. Even in respect of Charge No.3, theTribunal found that the delinquent had failed to return onereceipt book. In respect of Charge Nos.4 and 5, the Tribunalfound that the amount had been remitted by the delinquentsubsequently. However, the Tribunal observed that there was noevidence to show that the amounts in question had been collectedon a particular day and there was no proof of actualmisappropriation and that the amount had been converted by thedelinquent for his own use. Ultimately the Tribunal observed :-"5. ... Even taking for granted that the charges areproved, in view of the nature of the committedirregularities and the mistake committed by theapplicant, punishment of dismissal is too excessive andshockingly disproportionate. The applicant is only 43years old. The Department has no past record to holdagainst the applicant. The applicant must be given achance to mend his ways and prove useful to thedepartment. Therefore, while setting aside thepunishment of dismissal, the respondents are directed toimpose the punishment of stoppage of increment for fiveyears with cumulative effect and also denial of backwagesfor the period of unemployment."Such order of the Tribunal had been challenged by thedepartmental officials. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted thatkeeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that thecharges had been proved, the Tribunal should not have interferedwith the punishment of dismissal and at any rate the order of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal directing reinstatement of the delinquent in service wasuncalled for.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1submitted that as a matter of fact Respondent No.1, who was theapplicant before the Tribunal, had challenged various findings inthe departmental proceedings as based on no evidence, but theTribunal without properly considering such contention has observedthat most of the charges had been established. It has beenfurther submitted that there was nothing on record to indicatethat there had been misappropriation and, therefore, in theabsence of proof relating to serious charges, the order ofdismissal was grossly disproportionate. 7. After the writ petition was heard and posted forfurther hearing, respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit statingthat in case the court is inclined to interfere with the orderpassed by the Tribunal, the punishment of compulsory retirementmay be imposed so that the Respondent No.1 and his family memberscould at least sustain themselves by getting the pension amount.8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for theparties at length and having gone through the materials on record,we find, even though more serious charge relating tomisappropriation had not been proved, the charges which had beenproved and more particularly the charge relating to loss ofreceipt book, was quite serious. Therefore, the direction of theTribunal regarding reinstatement was obviously uncalled for.Keeping in view the background of the case and nature of theallegations relating to charge Nos.1, 2 and 3, we do not think itwas appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to directreinstatement of Respondent No.1. Therefore, such order of theTribunal cannot be sustained.9. The next question is relating to punishment. Innormal course, the matter could have been remanded to thedepartmental authorities for reconsidering the question ofpunishment. However, since the occurrence had taken long back andmore particularly an affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.1praying for imposition of lesser punishment of compulsoryretirement, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase, instead of sustaining the order of dismissal, it would bemore appropriate to direct that Respondent No.1 shall be deemed tohave been compulsorily retired with effect from 4.4.2000. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part andthe order passed by the Tribunal directing reinstatement is setaside and it is directed that Respondent No.1 shall deemed to havebee compulsorily retired with effect from the date of dismissal.The benefits available to Respondent No.1 on account of suchmodified punishment of compulsory retirement, shall be madeavailable to Respondent No.1, if he is otherwise eligible, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of fourmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.Consequently, the WPMP.No.42994 of 2004 is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.dpkTo1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District.2.The District Revenue Officer,O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office,Namakkal, Namakkal District.1 cc to Mr.M. Ravi, Advocate, SR. 229771 cc to the Government Pleader, SR. 23119W.P.NO.35701 OF 2004GB (CO)kk 16/5