A NATARAJAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners have filed the two writ petitions challenging an order passed by the second respondent, i.e., Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, dated 29.06.2010 and seeks to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent Government to disburse the full pensionary benefits to which the petitioner in the first writ petition is entitled to by treating the services of the first writ petitioner as having retired on superannuation on 30.6.2010 and that in the case of the second writ petitioner, after setting aside the charges framed, seeks for a direction to promote him to the post of Executive Engineer by including his name in the panel of Assistant Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineers for the year 2010-11 pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.(D)No.383, Public Works Department, dated 19.08.2010 and place the petitioner as Serial No.55A in between the name of M.Kesavalu (Sl.No.55) and B.Ravichandran (Sl.No.56) together with all monetary benefits.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up for admission, the learned Judge, who was in-charge of admission, was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions and after hearing arguments, orders were reserved. However, on 01.12.2010, the matter was listed and on that day, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time.

(3.) IN the affidavit, they had referred to various statements of witnesses enclosed in the departmental enquiry. The petitioners had also enclosed statements of witnesses in their typed set. Therefore, it cannot be said that charges are vague. On the other hand, charges are referable to evidence on record. It only gives a skeleton nature of charges. Only when the statements of witnesses are recorded and they are cross examined and when findings are rendered, the actual involvement of petitioners can come to light.