Madras High Court V.Thiruvengadam vs The Special Commissioner And on 28 April, 2011 DATED :: 28042011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN WRIT PETITION No.39017 OF 2004 V.Thiruvengadam ... Petitioner vs The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai5. ... Respondent For petitioner :Mr.V.Raghavachari For respondent : Mr.S.Gopinathan, Addl.Govt.Pleader. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings Rc.SER.V(2)/49556/99, dated 22.09.2000, and quash the same. 2. Facts of the case are as under : While the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer, Sengunam Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, Vellore, had framed charges against the petitioner in proceedings No.A2/1/99, dated 15.9.1999 and the charge memo was served on the petitioner on 24.09.1999. After receiving the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his written statement before the authority on 29.9.2000. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Proceedings Commissioner, Vellore. After receiving the same, the Commissioner has submitted his report to the authority for further action. In the enquiry report, the Commissioner has held that the first charge is proved and the second charge is partly proved. The first respondent has issued a memo along with the enquiry report, calling for explanation with regard to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his further explanation and thereafter the respondent has given his conclusion that both the charges were proved and imposed punishment of removal from service vide Rc.SER.V(2)/49556/99, dated 22.09.2000. The petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by way of application O.A.No.404 of 2001 to set aside the order of removal from service passed by the respondent. As the Tribunal has become defunct, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Writ Petition. 3. Respondent has filed a counter, stating as follows : 3.1. While the petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer, Sengunam Village, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, he had committed grave misconduct and misdemeanour and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as a Government servant and demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Seethalakshmi alias Sethammal and Tmt.Muniammal for arranging to get them Distress Relief Fund. The petitioner, in abuse of his official position and authority, had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.2400/ and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and contravened Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules,1973. 3.2. The charge memo was served on the petitioner on 25.10.1999. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and marked four exhibits to prove the charges against the writ petitioner. The defence has neither examined any witness nor marked any exhibit. The counsel for the accused officer/writ petitioner has submitted written arguments before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, on 19.1.2000. The oral arguments of both sides were heard on 20.1.2010 and the enquiry was concluded by the Tribunal. After considering all the documentary evidences, written and oral arguments of both sides, the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, has given his findings in Case No.1/99, holding charge No.1 as proved fully and charge No.2 as partly proved. Since the respondent is the head of the Department and is competent to pass final orders on the findings of the Tribunal, the same was transmitted to the respondent for passing final orders under the provisions of Rule 10 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules,1955. 3.3. After examining the findings of the Tribunal in Case No.1/99, it has been decided to give the writ petitioner reasonable opportunity to put forth his further representations, if any, on the above findings, as contemplated under the said rules. The petitioner has received a copy of the findings of the Tribunal on 6.7.2000 communicated in respondent's memo dated 5.6.2000 and submitted his further explanation dated 3.8.2000 within the stipulated time of 30 days. The respondent has examined carefully and independently the further explanations submitted by the writ petitioner with that of the findings of the Tribunal and connected records placed before the respondent. It was seen both from the deposition of Seethammal and her crossexamination that she gave Rs.1300/ to the writ petitioner in two instalments. Though she did not remember the