The Hindu Business Line : Madras HC strikes down second enquiry against VAO

Chennai March 18 An order removing a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in Dharmapuri district from service on the basis of a second enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) was erroneous, illegal and not supported by any evidence.

This was especially when the first enquiry report was given with a finding that VAO was not guilty, the Madras High Court has held, adding that the only course open to RDO was to disagree with the said enquiry report and proceed further on basis of material available.

Mr T. Muthusamy, VAO, who was due to retire on February 28, 2005 was dismissed by the RDO of Krishnagiri on June 17, 1997 on certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him.

The petitioner challenged the order before the TN Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed vide order dated December 4, 2001 as it found that there was no material evidence against the petitioner.

The RDO of Krishnagiri reinstated him on February 27, 2002. After a lapse of two years, the RDO issued proceedings to recover Rs 92,878 from the petitioner with accumulated interest.

The petitioner contended that allegations against him were identical to those made earlier and which were quashed by the Tribunal.

He challenged the RDO's order and the High Court granted interim stay. As the petitioner was to retire on February 28, 2005, a charge memo was issued to him on February 25 and he was not permitted to retire from service. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry.

An enquiry was held by the Special Tahsildar of Palacode, who concluded that the charges were not proved.

The RDO, instead of taking action on basis of enquiry report, strangely appointed another enquiry. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that the petitioner did not appear for enquiry, and therefore, all charges were proved against him.

The First Bench, comprising Mr Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Mr Justice K. Chandru, held that ordering for second enquiry was illegal and unsustainable. Hence, the order dated May 31, 2006 by the RDO was being quashed.

The Bench also said that the Department should have been prudent enough to proceed against employees immediately on commission of any irregularity and could not wait eternally, that too, till he reached the age of superannuation.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Rural Development | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page