(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in G.O.Ms.205 CT & RE Department, dated 2.6.1997 and to quash the same).

Heard both sides.

2. This writ petition arose out of O.A.No.2427 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.37943 of 2006.

3. The petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in G.O.Ms.205 CT & RE Department, dated 2.6.1997 and to quash the same.

4. The petitioner, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer, after his retirement, filed the OA No.2427 of 1998, challenging the order, dated 2.6.97 passed by the respondent State in G.O.Ms.No.205, CT & RE Department. By the impugned order, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of cut in pension at the rate of Rs.200/- per month for two years.

5. The petitioner was charged on the ground that while he was working as DCTO, he had failed to adopt a correct amount of penalty and levied penalty only at the rate of Rs.21883/- instead of Rs.2,18,833/- in respect of assessment made in favour of one Aruna Traders. Because of this, the State had incurred loss of Rs.1.97 lakhs.

6. The contention of the petitioner was that it was a mistake made and the subsequent officers had made corrections. The arithmetic error committed by the petitioner was corrected under Section 55 of the TNGST Act by his successor. It was stated that his successors had not noticed the error and it was still resulted in loss to the State. An oral enquiry and personal enquiry was given to the petitioner. The TNPSC was also consulted. After the enquiry report was furnished and after getting explanation, it was held that the charge was proved. In the charge memo, the infraction of the conduct rule 21 was mistakenly quoted instead of Rule 20(1). Therefore, it was held that the said charge may be dropped in terms of Rule 21. But, nevertheless, the punishment should be imposed for his negligence.

7. On notice from the tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.7.2000. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the second part of the charge was dropped because of wrong quoting of rule provision, but his defence regarding the arithmetic error was not accepted.

8. The ground taken in the OA was that the petitioner being wrongly charge-sheeted under Rule 21 and therefore, there was no application of mind and there was no loss to the State and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the mistake committed by him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of T.N. v. K.N. Ramamurthy reported in (1997) 7 SCC 101 [LQ/SC/1997/1116] .

9. As to the scope of framing charge sheet against the quasi judicial authority came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in T.K. K.Tharmar Vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai-104 and others reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 877 (rendered by KCJ). It was held after considering all the decisions on the said subject in paragraph 19 of the order that if the department has prima facie material to show that the officer had acted negligently or his order unduly favoured a party and his action was for corrupt motive, disciplinary action can be taken against the Government servant even if he acts in quasi judicial capacity.

10. Considering the fact that the petitioner was given all opportunities and due formalities were followed, it is not a fit case where any interference is called for on the impugned punishment given to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.