Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: regularize leave in N.Muthukrishnan vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 10 April, 2017Matching Fragments
5. It is stated that not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent authorities initiated departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report holding the charges proved. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not assessed his explanation along with the documents in proper perspective and no reasons have been adduced by the Enquiry Officer to hold the charges against the petitioner proved.
6. It is averred that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry report and thereafter, the third respondent by proceedings dated 3.2.2009 imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect, besides the recovery of the alleged loss to the tune of Rs.1,60,906/-. The period of suspension was ordered to be regularized as regular leave. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the third respondent, being the disciplinary authority, has not considered the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective and had not passed a reasoned order.