IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 23.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.4603 of 2007 M.Rengarajan. ... Applicant -Vs.- 1.State represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai-5. 3.The Collector, Thuthukudi District, Thuthukudi. ... Respondents Original Application No.7413 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for the records connected with the Pro.Na.Ka.A6/45014/93 (23/30) dated 4.6.96 by the District Collector, Chidambaranar District (now Thoothukudi District) Proc.Na.Ka.No.Estt.5(3)/81395 dated 18.11.97 and G.O.No.(3D) 26 Revenue (Estt.7) dated 17.12.98 and set aside the same. Since the Tamilnadu Appellate Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi For respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, Government Advocate O R D E R Original Application No.7413 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for the records connected with the Pro.Na.Ka.A6/45014/93 (23/30) dated 4.6.96 by the District Collector, Chidambaranar District (now Thoothukudi District), Proc.Na.Ka.No.Estt.5(3)/81395 dated 18.11.97 and G.O.No.(3D) 26 Revenue (Estt.7) dated 17.12.98 and set aside the same. Since the Tamilnadu Appellate Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. During the General Elections held in the year 1991, the applicant/petitioner, the Village Administrative Officer was engaged in election duty. He claimed certain amounts based on fabricated documents for which he was proceeded by way of departmental proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification and Appeal) Rules. Nine charges were framed. Enquiry officer was appointed. In the said enquiry, oral and documentary evidence were let in. After considering the explanation and the defence of the petitioner, the enquiry officer came to conclusion that three of the charges were partly proved and dropped the other charges. Based on the enquiry officer's report, the disciplinary authority, the District Collector came to the conclusion that the finding of the enquiry officer with regard to the three charges was correct and consequently ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.11,380/-. He also imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect for the proved delinquency. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Principal Commissioner, the second respondent, who confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. The Review to the Government also was dismissed. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed in the year 1999 challenging the aforesaid proceedings. 3. Heard Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the disciplinary authority, taking into consideration the work done by the petitioner during election, had taken a lenient view of the matter in imposing the punishment and that has been recorded in the order of the disciplinary authority. There is no serious dispute with regard to the finding as against the petitioner in respect of the three charges against the petitioner. 5. In such view of the matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, when the facts are not in dispute, the Disciplinary Authority has come to a conclusion to impose a lower punishment as above, based on the conduct of the petitioner at the time of election. The Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have also confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority after careful consideration. There is no good reason shown as to how the finding of guilt in the disciplinary proceeding is bad. The amount of Rs.11,380/- as ordered to be recovered is based on a factual claim. The punishment imposed is for the delinquency charge. This Court finds no good reason to interfere with the finding of facts and the punishment imposed as has been decided by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai-5. 3.The Collector, Thuthukudi District, Thuthukudi. + 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.12330 W.P.No.4603 of 2007 RV(CO) EM/9.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/