Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.For the six Articles of Charges, the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 5.7.2000, rebutting each Articles of Charge. After receiving his explanation, the Sub Collector, Sivakasi had not appointed an Inquiry Officer as prescribed in Government Letter No.1118 P & AP (Per N/87) dated 22.12.1987.

6.The Petitioner filed O.A.No.3555 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained an interim stay. Even then he was kept under compulsory wait. He issued a legal notice for initiating contempt proceedings through his counsel. He was reinstated into service with effect from 18.7.2000. However, the period of compulsory wait from 8.5.2000 to 18.7.2000 was not regularised. He was also transferred by the District Revenue Officer on 20.9.2000.

7.The Petitioner filed O.A.No.7234 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the District Revenue Officer was not competent to transfer him. The Tribunal granted an interim order dated 20.9.2000. But he was kept in compulsory wait from 21.9.2000 to 19.10.2000. He received a notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi on 1.4.2002 whereby he and the Co-delinquent Thiyagarajan, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar were required to appear for an enquiry and also were asked to furnish the defence statement. In the said notice, he found that the new charge memo dated 20.12.2000 was issued by the 2nd Respondent/District Collector, Virudhunagar. The charge memo issued by the 2nd Respondent/District Collector was not at all served on him.