C KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings made in Memo R. No. 75848/v4/05, dated 4. 5. 2006 passed by the second respondent and also to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuant to the aforesaid charge memo, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioner, who is the Superintendent attached to the Transport Department, Tamil Nadu.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition could be stated thus: the petitioner, who was originally appointed as the Junior Assistant in the year 1986, was promoted as the Superintendent from 13. 3. 2002 and he was posted at Motor Vehicle Inspector Office, Hosur. While he was doing so, on 28. 11. 2005, there was a surprise inspection by the higher-ups and certain irregularities were noticed and a charge memo was also issued. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and that Enquiry Officer retired in the month of February, 2007 and yet, no one was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the matter is pending and it has not proceeded with and hence, all the promotions have become delayed. Further, the charges found in the charge memo did not attract anything to be proceeded under Rule 17 (b) and further, no major punishment could be awarded and under these circumstances, it would come only under Rule 17 (a) and for the reasons known to the department, nobody was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the matter is pending yet. The petitioner is due to attain superannuation in the month of February, 2008. Under these circumstances, the proceedings have got to be quashed.

(3.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the respondents. According to him, the Enquiry Officer is to be appointed. This charge memo was issued only on 4. 5. 2006 and due to the retirement of the Enquiry Officer, a new one has got to be appointed, which has got to be done shortly by the department. Apart from that, even a reading of the charges found in the memo would clearly indicate that they are rightly framed under Rule 17 (b) and there is no question of attracting Rule 17 (a), in view of the factual position that arise. Under these circumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.