R. PRAHALATHAN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TAHDCO, SALEM SUB DIVISION, SEELANAICKENPATTI, SALEM Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAHDCO, TAMIL NADU ADI DRAVIDAR HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORTION LTD., THIRUMANGALAM, CHENNAI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The punishment imposed on the petitioner in a departmental proceedings is being challenged.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as a Junior Engineer in the year 1975. On 25.7.1979 he was posted at Ooty and he relieved the second respondent. On 31.10.1982, he handed over charge to his successor. It appears that before the petitioner had joined at Ooty, several items of materials such as, cement bags and rods had been given on loan by previous incumbents to other organisations such as Ooty Municipality and Tamil Nadu Adidravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited and other organisations belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu and those items had not been recovered. It appears that during his tenure, the petitioner recovered 403 bags of cements and subsequently, the petitioner, while handing over charge to his successor namely, Mr. R. Sabapathy, it is indicated that other items are to be recovered from the various departments. It further appears that in the year 1986, during audit, objection was raised regarding non -recovery of those items from the various departments. Subsequently, after a decade had passed, the Department thought it fit to initiate departmental proceeding against the present petitioner and the second respondent. The present petitioner filed his explanation denying his liability in the matter. The Enquiry Officer in his report initially fixed responsibility on the second respondent, but subsequently, on the suggestion of the General manager, the Department decided that the liability to pay the money representing the value of the items which had not been recovered should be apportioned between the second respondent and the present petitioner in the proportion of 2:1. It seems that the second respondent before his retirement has paid Rs.45,514/=. Subsequently, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the balance amount of about Rs.22,757/=. It is also directed that there should be stoppage of increment of the petitioner for six months without cumulative effect. Notice has also been given to the petitioner to pay the amount, failing which he would be suspended. All these orders are being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the action taken against the present petitioner. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel representing the Department was called upon to produce the relevant files. The learned counsel produced certain files. In the counter affidavit, a stand has been taken that the petitioner had admitted his liability and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same.