Judgment :- (Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Memo No.85139/VI/2000 dated 17.10.2005 and quash the same) By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Assistant and posted at Regional Transport Office, Nagapattinam, after selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 28.03.1995. He had been promoted as Assistant on 31.12.1999 and thereafter, he was appointed as Accountant at the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri. While he was working as Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Nagapattinam, one Mathivanan, who was a Mini Bus Operator filed an application to surrender two Mini Bus permits on 12.10.2000 due to monetary loss in the transport business. This has been accepted by the District Collector-cum-Regional Transport Authority, Nagapattinam, who is the competent authority. Since the Regional Transport Officer was on leave from 13.10.2000 to 23.10.2000, the file could not be sent to the Regional Transport Authority because it had to be counter-signed by the Regional Transport Officer, Nagapattinam. 3. The petitioner has contended that he has performed his role of preparing the Office Note and the same has been typed in the proper format and the file was placed at the Regional Transport Officer's table on 23.10.2000 itself, by which his work was over. 4. The petitioner has further contended that the said Mathivanan who was in hurry and haste to dispose of his mini-buses for a good price, after surrendering the permits, got annoyed over the delay and therefore, he has given a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 24.10.2000 at 11:45 a.m. on the basis of which, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department officials arranged for a trap on the same day. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was previous enmity between him and the said Mathivanan since the latter applied for the permit for his mini-buses and sought for route permit upto Mayiladuthurai Bus Stand but the routes were restricted upto the previous bus stop by the competent authority restraining him to ply upto Mayiladuthurai bus stand which resulted in huge monetary loss in business to the said Mathivanan. 5. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that, by this dealing, the said Mathivanan has created enmity with him which is the prime motive for him to see that somehow or other, he is removed from service. With this view, the said Mathivanan had come to the office of the petitioner and thrusted some amount in his pocket upon which the petitioner shouted and pushed him out angrily. Thereafter, he went to the Regional Transport Officer to inform about the incident and subsequently, the officials of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department entered the office and questioned him. 6. In such a situation, a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner in CC No.18 of 2001 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam and in the criminal complaint, he was convicted by judgment dated 06.09.2005 with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-. As against the same, he had filed Criminal Appeal No.753 of 2005 before this Court and this Court suspended the sentence and the appeal is pending. 7. When such is the situation, the first respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2005 under Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") with a pre-determined motive to remove the petitioner from service and that impugned proceedings is challenged in this writ petition on the following grounds: a. that the impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the first respondent has already taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service, which is one of the major punishments under Rule 8 of "the Rules"; b. that when any major punishment is imposed, the authorities shall state the materials which have been considered by them and they should also state the reasons which influenced them to proceed further; c. that there must be an opportunity and a Notice to the delinquent about the details of the relevant charges considered by them and upon such Notice, the delinquent should be given an opportunity to submit his explanation only if they state the materials one by one in detail and specifically to enable the delinquent to submit his explanation. d. that the authorities should keep their mind open and they should specifically state the reason for which they seek explanation from the delinquent. 8. d. that the authorities should keep their mind open and they should specifically state the reason for which they seek explanation from the delinquent. 8. Based on the aforesaid grounds, it is the strong contention of the petitioner that, in the instant case, even before receiving the explanation, the authorities have pre-determined the issue and have decided to remove him from service and the act of the authorities thereafter in asking the delinquent to submit explanation is ex facie illegal and improper and it is only a pre-empty formality and hence, impugned proceedings is liable to be set aside on the ground of pre-determination. 9. On the above-said contentions of the petitioner and upon hearing Mr. Suresh Viswanath, learned Government Advocate for respondents, it is to be seen that the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2005 reads as follows: "Whereas Thiru. N. Gokulakrishnan, Accountant, O/o the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also for the ofence under Section 201 IPC and has been awarded a sentence of to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- I.D. to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 7 and to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Rs.4,000/-. The substantive sentences imposed to run concurrently by the Assistant Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Nagapattinam in Calendar Case No.18/2001, dated 06.09.2005. And whereas the undersigned proposed to impose the penalty of removal from service specified in Rule 8 of the TNCS (D &A) Rules on the basis of facts, which have led to his conviction in the said Criminal Court. Now, therefore, Thiru. N. Gokulakrishnan is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty as proposed above under rule 17(c)(i)(1) of the TNCS (D & A) Rules. Any representation which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed will be considered by the undersigned. Such a representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by Thiru.N.Gokulakrishnan." 10. Any representation which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed will be considered by the undersigned. Such a representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by Thiru.N.Gokulakrishnan." 10. In this context, it is worthwhile to give a reading of Rule 17(c)(i)(1) of "the Rules" which is as follows: Procedure in the case of conviction of a Government Servant: (i)(1) The requirements of sub-rule (b) shall not apply where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any such penalty as is referred to in clause (i) of that sub-rule on the basis of facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court (whether or not he has been sentenced at once by such court to any punishment); but he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before the order imposing the penalty is passed. 11. From a reading of the above Rule, it is made clear that where it is proposed to impose on a member of service, any such penalty as is referred to in Clause 1 of sub-rule on the basis of the facts which should lead to his conviction in a criminal case, he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation if any, shall be taken into consideration before the order imposing the penalty is passed. 12. Whereas, in the instant case, even before receiving the explanation, the first respondent has pre-determined the issue and has decided to remove the petitioner from service and thereafter asking the delinquent to submit his explanation is prima facie illegal and it is only on an empty formality, they are asking for explanation and therefore, it is clear that the impugned proceedings is issued without application of mind and thus, it is a pre-determined one since the first respondent has provisionally come to the conclusion to pass an order of removal of the petitioner which is contrary to the Rule referred to above. 13. This Court, on an earlier occasion, in an identical circumstance, has dealt with a case of dismissal from service reported in (2006) 1 MLJ 40 (M.Devendran Vs. 13. This Court, on an earlier occasion, in an identical circumstance, has dealt with a case of dismissal from service reported in (2006) 1 MLJ 40 (M.Devendran Vs. The Director, Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services, Egmore, Tamil Nadu) wherein it was held as follows: "Thus, it is seen from the above said Rule 17(c)(i)(1) that where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any such penalty as is referred to in Clause (i) of the sub rule on the basis of facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court (whether or not he has been sentenced at once by such Court to any punishment); but he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before the order imposing the penalty is passed. Whereas in this case, the respondent in the impugned communication has pre-judged the things and has provisionally come to the conclusion to dismiss the petitioner from service which is contrary to the Rule referred to above. Hence, the impugned communication is quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondent to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law." 14. Taking into consideration the above decision, the facts and circumstances of the case and also the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, the impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2005 passed by the first respondent is quashed. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to issue a fresh Notice in accordance with law and to follow the procedure contemplated under “the Rules” within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is ordered. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed.