IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition No.2822 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.Sivakumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Erode District. 2.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ certiorarified mandamus, call for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.96937/99 A4 dated 05.12.2000 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits and grant him such other further relief. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataraman, SC for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun, AGP O R D E R Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The petitioner was previously working as an Assistant at the Office of the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Erode. A charge memo was issued to him by the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.96937/99 A4 dated 07.12.1999. There were two charges framed against the petitioner. The first charge is to the effect that the petitioner tampered with the records to favour one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.Swaminathan. The second charge is to the effect that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to do the above favour. The letter said to have been given by the petitioner on 05.11.1999 to the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Erode admitting the guilt is the material evidence available on record. Based on the said letter, charge sheet was laid in which some witnesses were cited. One Mr.M.Muthaiah, Assistant Commissioner Excise, Erode was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. During enquiry, in respect of the first charge, no witness was examined and no document was exhibited. In respect of the second charge, Mr.Swaminathan was examined and he was cross examined by the petitioner. Based on the same, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report by his proceedings in Mu.Mu.J4/11507/2000 dated 30.06.2000 holding that in the matter of tampering the official records, the petitioner might have had a part to play. Based on the same, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. 3.Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1474 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on transfer to this Court, the same has been renumbered as W.P.No.2822 of 2007 and that is how the same is before me for disposal. 4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner to prove the charges framed against him. The learned Senior Counsel would take me through the Enquiry Officer’s report from where I am able to find that no witness was examined and no document was exhibited in respect of the first charge. As a matter of fact, the Enquiry Officer has placed some reliance on the letter said to have been given by the petitioner on 20.01.2000 to the Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms, Erode. Though there is denial by the petitioner about the genuineness of the said letter, the letter has not even been exhibited in evidence. Without doing so, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded on the footing that the said letter is true and based the same he has given finding holding the first charge as proved. 5.In respect of the second charge, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, though in chief examination, Mr.Swaminathan has deposed that he gave Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, during cross examination, he has resiled from the earlier statement. Curiously, in the Enquiry Officer’s report, I am able to see that the Enquiry Officer has stated that he enquired Mr.Swaminathan both in the presence of the petitioner and also personally in a discrete manner which shows that he does not know even the basic principles of law relating to the enquiry. I do not know how the Enquiry Officer could have such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discrete enquiry in respect of the charges with the vital witness in the absence of the delinquent. In the conclusion also, the Enquiry Officer has not stated that the petitioner is solely responsible and that the charges stood proved. What all he has stated in his report is that the petitioner might have had a part to play in this misdeed. 6.In my considered opinion, the Enquiry Officer’s report, in this case, is not at all valid and the same is nonest in the eye of law for the illegalities and infirminites stated above. Similarly, the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent on the basis of the said report is also irregular and illegal. Consequentially, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be quashed. 7.For all the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.96937/99 A4 dated 05.12.2000 as well as the Enquiry Officer’s report are quashed. The first respondent is directed to appoint afresh an independent well equipped Enquiry Officer who shall hold a fresh enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and by following the established procedure relating to enquiry. The first respondent is directed to appoint an Enquiry Officer within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the Enquiry Officer is directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from his date of appointment; the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the Enquiry Officer for early completion of the enquiry and on receipt of such Enquiry Officer’s report, the first respondent is directed to pass final orders within a period of two months thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Jbm Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Erode District. 2.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai – 5. + 1 cc to Mr. T. A. Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate SR No. 37348 • 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.37305 VSV(CO)SR/22.7.2008 W.P.No.2822 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/