Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (3) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not allowed to retire from service by an order dated 29.05.1995 and also he was placed under suspension by another order of the same date, namely, 29.05.1995 that the departmental enquiry was pending. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he was a diploma holder in Sanitary Engineering and was appointed as a Public Works Supervisor in Rasipuram Municipality on 20.04.1960. Thereafter, he was promoted as Municipal Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on 17.08.1966, 21.10.1970, and 23.07.1980 respectively. Further, he was worked as Deputy Superintending Engineer at Tirunelveli from 1993 to 1995. While he was working as Executive Engineer at Ooty, based on the audit report for the period 1981-82 to 1987-88, he was conf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of documents, but it was not considered. Hence, he filed W.P. No. 1247 of 1996 challenging the charge memo and this Court, by order, dated 12.04.1996 directed the respondents to make available all the documents in four weeks and directed the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry within three months from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.11.1986 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 30.11.1996 and after completing the enquiry, a report was submitted on 14.05.1997 holding that except charges 1(i), 1(vi), other charges were not proved and only charge No. 1(viii) was partially proved. When they failed to pass final orders, as directed by this Court, WPMP. No. 1094 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... into consideration the said facts, dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides and perused the records. It is clear that when the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer at Ooty, on the basis of the audit report for the year 1981-82 to 1987-88, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was placed under suspension on 02.09.1988 for the irregularities committed by him. When they failed to complete the enquiry, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 19276 of 1992 and it was disposed of with a direction to complete the enquiry within a period of three months and when it was not complied with, a petition for extension of time was filed and the sam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der, which, in our considered view, is without any authority and is liable to be set aside on the ground that when this Court refused to extend the time for completing the enquiry for the alleged irregularities committed by him during the period from 1981-82 to 1987-88 when he was working as Executive Engineer, Ooty (on the basis of the audit report) and by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, he was reinstated and even though time was granted to complete the enquiry, they failed to complete the same. Though criminal investigation was conducted and criminal case was filed, he was acquitted in 2005. Taking into consideration his date of retirement from service on 31.05.1995, they have revived the disciplinary proceedings and placed him .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sued on the date of retirement only. ... (vii) The above instructions shall not be made applicable to cases of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption enquiry and criminal cases . It is made clear from the above guidelines that the same are not applicable when he was acquitted from the criminal case filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. 8. Therefore, when the Court has given time twice to conduct enquiry, the respondents at one time submitted that they have completed the enquiry and sought time for passing final order and on the said representation, three months time was granted. Though one month time was extended thereafter, no final order was passed. But when a contempt petition was filed by the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates