P M ELANGOVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel for Mr. V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Arun, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor-Grade II in the year 1981 and posted at Salem. After serving in this capacity for 18 years, he was promoted as Assistant Public Prosecutor-Grade-I in 1999 and posted in Economic Offence Wing, Chennai. He was subsequently promoted as Additional Public Prosecutor in February 2002 and posted at Pudukottai in which post he has joined on 28. 3. 2002. Since there was a vacancy in the post of Assistant Director of Prosecution at Pudukkottai, the petitioner was directed to take additional charge as Assistant Director of prosecution along with the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, from 18. 7. 2003 onwards the petitioner was holding the post of Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Assistant Director of Prosecution in-charge at Pudukottai. He was subsequently appointed on regular basis as Assistant Director of Prosecution on 7. 6. 2004 and discharged the said duty till he was transferred on the said post at Nagapattinam on 12. 10. 2004 which post he is now holding as on date. During the time when he was holding both posts of Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Assistant Director of Prosecution at Pudukkottai he had to attend various administrative work attached to Assistant Director of Prosecution by visiting various places and therefore there has been a lot of work load. It was under those circumstances the petitioner was compelled to request one of his Assistant Public Prosecutor to report in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai. It is seen that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in the letter addressed to the second respondent, namely, the Director of Prosecution, dated 12. 12. 2003 has requested for appointment of separate and independent Additional Public Prosecutor to his Court and relieve the petitioner so as to enable him to work as Assistant Director of Prosecution. There was no complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai against the petitioner at any point of time. It appears that during the time when the petitioner was holding the said dual posts in Pudukkottai, there has been some allegation against him as if he has collected Rs. 100/- from the Assistant Public Prosecutors for a common fund. There was further allegation that the petitioner has transferred one Sethuraman, Office Assistant in an irregular manner. On receipt of such complaint, the second respondent has directed the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Sivagangai to conduct a discreet enquiry on the basis of the abovesaid charges. The said Deputy Director of Prosecution, Sivagangai has conducted a detailed enquiry and examined various persons including those persons who have given complaint apart from the petitioner and after elaborate enquiry the said Deputy Director of Prosecution has submitted his report dated 31. 12. 2003 in which it is clearly stated that there was no evidence for demand of money from the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the amount was also not collected for any consideration. However, in the said report, the enquiry officer has given some instructions to the petitioner directing the petitioner to attend to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court first before taking up administrative work as Assistant Director of Prosecution. The report submitted by the said Deputy Director of Prosecution, Siva Gangai dated 31. 12. 2003 was accepted by the second respondent himself. It appears that even thereafter there has been some anonimous letter against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has given a false complaint of theft against one Office Assistant-Prabakaran and he has received Rs. 100/- for sending bills. It was based on the said anonimous letter a further enquiry was directed to be done and the enquiry officer was appointed by the second respondent who conducted an elaborate enquiry and submitted his report on 11. 10. 2004 clearly finding that the allegations are not proved, however, with a direction to the petitioner not to use any harsh words against the lower officers. In that way a memo was issued to the petitioner based on the second enquiry report giving warning to the petitioner that he should not use harsh words against the subordinates. Therefore, in respect of all these charges after holding enquiry for more than one occasion, the authority has come to the conclusion that the charges are baseless. However, the impugned charge memo was ordered to be issued after one year on 22. 8. 2005 framing the same set of charges once again against the petitioner, which are extracted hereunder:

(3.) AS rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner a reference to the statement of charges levelled against the petitioner shows that all the said three charges are reproduction of the earlier allegations made against the petitioner in respect of which discreat enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer twice and that there was no substance in the said charges. The only contention is that on an earlier occasion when such complaints were received, no charges were framed under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. After completing the enquiry, for the first time the present impugned charges were issued in charge memo under Section 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1955. Further, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well respondents after the impugned charge memo was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner himself has submitted his explanation and there was a detailed enquiry conducted by the respondents.