- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge while finally deciding the writ petitioner bearing W. P. No. 1232 of 2003.
(2.) THE writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant herein who was ultimately served with an order of compulsory retirement. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner demanding cancellation and/or withdrawal and/or recalling of the aforesaid final order of compulsory retirement dated 4th April, 2003 issued by the Chairman of the appellant No. 1.
(3.) IN July, 1996, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent No. 1 who was the Accounts Officer of the appellant No. 1 and posted at Coonoor. As investigation was conducted by the Director of the appellant No. 1 to ascertain the facts of the case relating to the complaint against the respondent No. 1 being the charged officer. On September 5, 1996, a chargesheet was issued against the respondent No. 1 disclosing the following four articles of charge: i) On 6th May, 1996, the respondent No. I/charged officer wilfully neglected to discuss an official matter of urgency with his senior officer, the additional Director of Tea Development Authority which is contrary to the conduct and behaviour of an officer of his equivalent status of the appellant Board attracting the provisions of Rule 3 of C. C. S. (Conduct)Rules, 1964. ii) In April, 1996 while acting as the Accounts Officer, the respondent No. 1/charged officer had in his own handwriting made derogatory remarks against Smt. Ajitha Nathan, U. D. C. in one of the official files, bearing no. 14 (5)/rcs/bg/cnr/1996-Akkamalai, which were found irrelevant and unnecessary causing undue embarrassment to the said Ajitha nathan since deceased. iii) During the period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the respondent No. 1/charged officer had once again written derogatory remarks in a file of the appellant Tea Board against the said Smt. Nathan which was unbecoming of his conduct and the said file remained untraceable thereafter although the same was marked to the respondent no. 1/charged officer. iv) While functioning in the aforesaid Coonoor office, the respondent No. 1/charged officer on 21. 6. 96. failed to produce the aforesaid file bearing no. 14 (5)/rcs/bg/cnr/1996-Akkamalai when he was specifically asked to bring the same by the C. R. E. and he replied to the latter in presence of a senior A. D. T. D. in a manner which is most unbecoming of his conduct and behaviour attracting Rule 3 of C. C. S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ;