R.BANUMATHI, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by dismissal of Writ Petition � W.P.(MD) No.9246 of 2007 and declining to quash charge memo (12.4.2004), appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) FROM 1994, Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned Pre-Matric scholarships to children of those engaged in certain occupation i.e., scavenging, tanning and flaying. To avail the pre-Matric scholarships, applicant has to furnish a employment certificate from the Designated Officer in the Municipal Corporation and the Executive Officers in respect of Town Panchayats and Panchayat President in respect of Village Panchayats. In the year 1999-2000, complaints were received that bogus certificates were issued in the name of running tanneries and number of persons obtained pre-matric scholarship. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul sent a report stating that nearly a sum of Rs.49,07,700.00 was sanctioned to the parents on the basis of certificates issued by Deputy Tahsildars on the recommendations made by concerned Village Administrative Officers and Revenue Inspectors. On the basis of report, charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed against thirty persons including the appellant. The appellant, who was Deputy Tahsildar, is alleged to have issued 138 certificates to the ineligible students and alleged to have caused loss of revenue to the Government to the tune of Rs.1,07,850.00. The gist of charges against the appellant is that he was not competent to issue such employment certificates; but contrary to the instructions, he has countersigned 138 certificates, which resulted in loss of revenue. Charge memo was issued to the appellant on 12.4.2004 and the appellant offered his explanation. Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Dindigul was appointed as Enquiry Officer in proceedings No.A1/42509/2000 dated 12.2.2005. Enquiry Officer sent his report in March, 2006 stating that the charges are proved except Charge No.3. Enquiry Officer's report was served to the appellant and his further explanation was obtained. The District Collector conducted personal hearing on 6.10.2006 and statement of appellant was recorded. Observing that the Enquiry Officer did not check some beneficiaries, to know about the veracity of the charges, the District Collector ordered re-enquiry appointing another Enquiry Officer � Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Dindigul by proceedings No.42509/2000/A1 dated 29.03.2007.
(3.) IT was at that stage, appellant has filed the writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo dated 12.4.2004 issued by the 1st respondent and seeking direction to the 1st respondent to consider the appellant for promotion as Tahsildar.;