ANGALESWARI AND ORS Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed in the year 2005originally by late G. Muniasamy, S/o. Gurusamy, challengingthe order of dismissal from service passed against him bythe first Respondent-Assistant Director, Survey and LandRecords, Madurai, vide order dated 30.09.2003, as confirmedby the appellate authorities viz., Regional Deputy Directorof Survey, Madurai, Special and Additional Director ofSurvey, Chennai, and the Commissioner and Director ofSurvey and Settlement, Chennai, by their respective ordersdated 01.04.2004, 04.08.2004 and 09.02.2005, and seekingfor a consequential direction to the Respondents toreinstate him in service with back-wages together with allattendant benefits.

(2.) The original Petitioner -late Muniasamy ie.,husband of Petitioner No. 1, came to be appointed asDraftsman in the Department of Survey, Madurai District, oncompassionate ground after the death of his father-Gurusamy, by the Assistant Director of Survey, Madurai, inhis proceedings Na. Ka.S5/7871/94, dated 20.10.1994. Lateron, during 1996, it was found that the originalPetitioner's elder brother had joined Government Servicesubsequent to the demise of their father and, on thatground, the appointment given to the original Petitioner oncompassionate ground was cancelled as it runs against theGovernment Order in G.O. Ms. No. 998, Labour and Employment,dated 02.05.1981, which provides that if any member of thefamily of the deceased Government servant is in employmentin Government service or elsewhere other dependant membersof the family will not be eligible for appointment oncompassionate grounds. In the case of the originalPetitioner, his brother by name G. Ganesan was given appointment in the Department of Survey and Land Records,in the year 1973 after the death of the father in the year1972. Even though G.O. Ms. No. 155, Labour and EmploymentDepartment, dated 16.07.1993, provided that if a legal heirof the family of the deceased Government servant isemployed, even before the death of the Government servantand living separately, without extending any help, then insuch cases, the eligible dependants may be considered forappointment, the Department could not apply the provisionsof the said G.O. on the ground that the elder brother ofthe original Petitioner got the appointment in theDepartment only after the death of the Government servantand not before his death. As the original Petitioner wasappointed in the District Survey Unit, Madurai, withoutproperly taking into account the aforesaid aspects, hisservices came to be terminated, whereupon, he filed anapplication before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,in O.A. No. 5786 of 1996. By order, dated 10.10.1996, theTribunal granted an order of interim stay and on thestrength of such order, the Petitioner was reinstated inservice. Subsequent to abolition of the Tribunal, theOriginal Application was transferred to the High Court asWrit Petition No. 21695 of 2006. While the Petitioner wascontinuing in service after reinstatement by virtue of the interim order of stay and O.A. No. 5786 of 1996 converted asWrit Petition No. 21695 of 2006 was pending before the HighCourt, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against himon the allegation that, for personal gains, he played fraudby forging the signature of the Deputy Tahsildar forpreparing bogus chitta and Adangal under Natham Land TaxScheme in respect of a land measuring to an extent of 0.40.00 hectare in S. No. 134/2 in patta No. 1425 situate atTallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, in the names ofS. Venkatapathy, S/o. Srinivasan and Krishnaswamy,S/o. Perumalsamy, and in that regard, he attempted to getthe seal of the Government in the Office of the MaduraiNorth Taluk for affixing it on the fake records. After anenquiry conducted under Rules 17 (b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, ultimately,the Petitioner was found guilty and his services wereterminated by the impugned order and such order came to beconfirmed by the appellate authorities as mentioned above;hence, the present writ petition. During the pendency ofthese two writ petitions, the original writ PetitionerG. Muniasamy died. Hence, his wife and daughter came onrecord as legal heirs of Late Muniasamy.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submitthat the impugned order of termination passed against theoriginal Petitioner and the subsequent orders of theappellate authorities confirming the same will have nolegal sanctity since there is a gross violation of theprinciples of natural justice, in that, the procedureprescribed under Rule-17 (b) of the Rules is given acomplete go-bye. According to him, a bare perusal of theimpugned orders would reveal that there is no materialwhatsoever to hold the original Petitioner guilty of thecharges alleged since the Enquiry Officer himself hadobserved that it cannot be stated as to who prepared thedocuments in question and who put the signature therein. Therefore, even the Enquiry Officer was of the view thatthe original Petitioner was not the Author of the forgedsignature and the person who prepared the bogus records. Curiously, no witness was examined in the presence of theoriginal Petitioner and he was not even given anyopportunity to cross examine the witnesses, which course istotally unacceptable in law. Since the entire process ofthe enquiry suffers from serious lacunae and there wasgross violation of the principles of natural justiceprejudicial to the defence of the original Petitioner, thisCourt may set aside the impugned orders and consequently, prayed for issuing suitable direction to theRespondents/authorities for grant of service benefitspayable to the Petitioners/legal heirs of the originalPetitioner.