1994 (12) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ember 1985 he was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner. Sometime in the first half of 1989, a Special Audit Wing of the Transport department detected and reported misappropriation of a large amount of Government money in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Madras (Central) during the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. On the basis of the said report a memo of charges dated 4.6.89 was communicated to the respondent. 4. The memo of charges first sets out the amounts misappropriated under various heads in the said office during the aforesaid years, and then follow paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which read as follows: 4. During the above period, you Thiru. A. Radhakrishnamurty were performing the duties and responsibilities in the above office .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Government money, (iii) And that you and other officials are responsible for pecuniary loss caused to the State Government by above acts of misappropriation and are thus liable for recovery of the amounts i.e ₹ 5,54,124/- in the year 1983-84 and ₹ 5,21,914/- in the year 1984-85. 5. You are hereby directed to submit your written statement of defence to this charge memo within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo of charge. You are also informed that if no written reply is received, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and further action will be proceeded with, on merits. 6. The prescribed questionnaire Form is enclosed and you are directed to furnish replies to the same indicating specifically whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w. It only examines the procedural correctness of the decision-making-process. For this reason the order of the Tribunal insofar as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the charges, is unsustainable in law. 8. Insofar as initiation or enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concerned, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall nor be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal. 9. Insofar as the vagueness of the charges is concerned we find that it deserves acceptanc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X