Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1987 and was promoted as R . W. Grade-II / Assistant / Accountant in the year 1991. The petitioner was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Adidravidar Housing Development Corporation as Accountant on 01.10.1995. 2. The petitioner was served with charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, on the basis of Audit objection. The Assistant Manager, Manager and Previous Manager, District Manager Divisional Accountant and District Manager were also charge sheeted along with the petitioner. 3. It is the submission of petitioner, that misappropriation was committed by the Office Assistant the money was entrusted for remitting it to the Bank, which was not remitted. The petitioner was forced to pay a sum of Rs.65,320/-(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only), which was in fact misappropriated by the Office Assistant, by colluding with higher Officials. 4. The petitioner disputed allegations in the charge sheet, but the second respondent dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 20.09.2001. The impugned order of dismissal is challenged on the ground; i) that the 1st respondent had framed charge against petitioner on 19.05.2000, which is still pending on the same subject matter, therefore, it was not open to 2nd respondent to order dismissal from service. ii) that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges levelled against petitioner; iii) that Audit objection raised by the Audit authorities were met by deposit of money iv) that the impugned order is against the statutory provisions of law. According to Rule 9(9) of the Tamil Civil Service (D&A) Rules, when the officials of different department are involved, then the Government alone is competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings, thus the impugned order is said to be in violation of principle of natural justice. 5. The documents placed on record show, that the Tamil Nadu Adidravidar Housing Development Corporation had issued charge memo dated 19.05.2000 against the petitioner. Thereafter, vide R.C.No.P3/31631/2000 dated 18.04.2001, the petitioner was served with charge memo, by the District Collector, to which he submitted his explanation, which was found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed. 6. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 7. 6. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. 7. The translated copy of impugned order reads as under: "Proceedings of the District Collector, Sivagangai Present: Thiru Firjing Bajaj IAS RC No.P3/31621/2000Dt.20.9.2001 Sub: Public Services-Rural Development Unit-Sivagangai District-Thiru. P.Malaisamy Formerly Accountant THADCO Sivagangai misappropriation of THADCO Money-Final orders passed under Rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. Ref:1.Charge Memo issued by Sivagangai Collector in RC PC/31621/2000 dt.18.4.2001 2. Thiru. P.Malaisamy Explanation dt.22.5.2001 3. Report of Enquiry Officer A1/2523/2001 dt.1.8.01. 4. Related Documents. ORDER: In the Charge Memo first cited, charges under 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules were framed against Thiru. P.Malaisamy formerly accountant THADCO Sivagangai now as Rural Welfare Officer Grade I in Kalayarkoil Panchayat Union (now under Suspension). On receiving the Charge Memo. Thiru.P.Malaisamy sent his explanation in the reference second cited. For conducting enquiry, the BDO Devakottai was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After proper enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report in the reference 3rd cited. 2. The Charges framed on Thiru.P.Malaisamy Rural Welfare Officer Grade I (now under Suspension) his explanation for this and the report of enquiry officer are as follows: Charge 1 While you were working as Accountant THADCO Sivagangai, you have collected an amount of Rs.65320/- from the beneficieries from 1/98 to 4/99 by giving receipt and entering in the Cash Book and instead of remitting the same then there, only after fund out in audit report you have remitted the amount in four installments after 2 years (dates indicated in the abstract). From the above act it is inferred that you have acted with intention of misappropriation of THADCO's money. Explanation of the Delinquent Officer:- I served as Accountant in THADCO District Manager's Office of Sivagangai District from 1. 10.95 to 6.5.99. When I was working as Accountant I used to remit the amounts, in the bank by the credit slips through office assistant, the amounts received from beneficiaries as deposit, share amount and rent from commercial complex shops. Explanation of the Delinquent Officer:- I served as Accountant in THADCO District Manager's Office of Sivagangai District from 1. 10.95 to 6.5.99. When I was working as Accountant I used to remit the amounts, in the bank by the credit slips through office assistant, the amounts received from beneficiaries as deposit, share amount and rent from commercial complex shops. Further, since bank is computerized even though the S.B.A/c No. If THADCO was wrongly written, I am looking after THADCO S.B.A/c in addition to EB Bill, Telephone Bill, Stationeries, Children's Educational Fund, Preparation of minutes of the meeting and monthly accounts works were also done by me. Further application for sanction of assistance to 534 School Children were scrutinized and my entire time was spent on this and concentration if my full time could not be spent in account section. When the month by statement was prepared and sent to MD, as the balance was being reduced, I told than the District managers and Assistant Managers to verify the accounts and they replied that it can be verified at the end of year and to send the accounts immediately. As per this after approval only accounts were closed and sent. At the time of annual audit no information was given to me. It was informed to remit Rs.65320/- in the memo of District Manager as advised by auditors. Since I served in the Accountant Post and as I felt that I have failed to verify the account and in order to avoid any bad name to department, I remitted the amount to THADCO. In it, there is no mistake on my part. If I went to misappropriate THADCO's amount I would not have made entries in the Cash Book. I state that I have no intention to misappropriate THADCO's money. I kindly request that District Collector may drop the Charge framed against me. Report of Enquiry Officer: Since, various works were entrusted with him, due to pressure of work, he could not concentrate and verify the accounts the reason adduced for this by him is not acceptable. Out of the amount said to have been collected by him from 1/98 to 4/99, some of them were remitted in between and some of them were not remitted which is not because of his carelessness or pressure of work. Out of the amount said to have been collected by him from 1/98 to 4/99, some of them were remitted in between and some of them were not remitted which is not because of his carelessness or pressure of work. Further, since he remitted back the Rs.65320/- accepting the responsibility it is clearly inferred that he misappropriated. Hence the charge leveled against him is confirmed. Further explanation of delinquent officer on the report of Enquiry Officer:- I request that the explanation given by me regarding the charges in the disciplinary action already taken against me for the basis during my service as accountant in THADCO's Office may be accepted. Findings As per the report of Enquiry Officer then charge against Thiru P.Malaisamy is held as proved. You have remitted the amount of Rs.65320/-collected from 1/98 to 4/99 only on 11/99 and 1/2010. Hence, you have held responsible for the loss of interest to THADCO during this period. Explanation of the Delinquent Officer: During the period of my service as Accountant in THADCO, the monthly accounts were with the approval of District Manager and Accountant Manager, sent to MD. When difference is noticed between cash book and bank savings book while closing the monthly accounts and informed about the difference, they requested to sent the accounts and it will be adjusted while finalizing the annual accounts. I am to say that there is no mistake on my part. Though I belonged to Rural Development Department, when I served in THADCO, I never created bad name. In order to help the up lift of Adi Diravida people and for the Development of THADCO, I served and indicated my four years service there. I also submit that I never intend to serve with the object of misappropriating TADCO's money. I jointed in Government Service and served for more than 13 years. In any service, I never disobey the Rules or hated the colleagues or acted independently and served without negligence so for and assured that this will not again held in future and never violated the Government Servant's conduct rules. I therefore requested that I may be dropped from the charge leveled against me. Report of Enquiry Officer: Though he served for 13 years, while serving in THADCO Office, the amount of Rs.65,320/- collected from 1/98 to 4/99 was remitted only in 11/99 and 1/2000. I therefore requested that I may be dropped from the charge leveled against me. Report of Enquiry Officer: Though he served for 13 years, while serving in THADCO Office, the amount of Rs.65,320/- collected from 1/98 to 4/99 was remitted only in 11/99 and 1/2000. Though he gave statement that this will not be secured in future, for the interest lost due to delayed remittance he alone responsible. His explanation is not acceptable one. Hence, this charge is confirmed. Further explanation of the delinquent officer on the Enquiry Officer's report. I request that the explanation given by me regarding the charge in the disciplinary action already taken against me for the lapses during my service accountant in THADCO's Office may be dropped. Findings: As per report of Enquiry Officer, the charge against Thiru. P.Malaisamy is held as proved. Decision: As both charges are proved under 17 (b) punishment of Dismissal from service is awarded. If you want to file appeal against above final orders, he can make appeal within 60 days to the Director of Rural Development Department. Sd/- District Collector." 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that once charge sheet was served by respondent no.1, the second charge memo dated 18.04.2001 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules on the same set of allegations was without jurisdiction. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent was not competent authority, as it was respondent no.1, who could frame charge memo and finalize the disciplinary proceedings, as all documents and witnesses were in the office of the respondent no.1. 9. It was also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the combined reading of Rules 16, 16-A and 16-B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, shows that borrowing authority is only competent authority to frame charge memo and finalize the disciplinary proceedings and not the lending authority, therefore, the proceedings and the order of punishment is illegal. 10. It is next contended, that since misappropriation had taken place in the 1st respondent Corporation, it was the competent authority to conduct enquiry, specially when charges were framed against petitioner along with other employees, therefore, the enquiry by second respondent was without jurisdiction. 11. 10. It is next contended, that since misappropriation had taken place in the 1st respondent Corporation, it was the competent authority to conduct enquiry, specially when charges were framed against petitioner along with other employees, therefore, the enquiry by second respondent was without jurisdiction. 11. It is also submission of petitioner, that the persons charged with the petitioner by respondent no.1 were either exonerated or imposed minor punishment, therefore, the impugned punishment, being discriminatory, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner, while on deputation, misappropriated a sum of Rs.65,320/-(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only). On being pointed out, the petitioner remitted the amount on different dates after a lapse of two years from the date of misappropriation. 13. It is the case of respondents, that the petitioner, being on deputation, the right to hold disciplinary action against the petitioner was vested with the respondent no.2 only, being the competent authority under the rules. 14. It is the stand of the respondents, that though charge memo was issued by the Managing Director / respondent no.1, but charge memo was without jurisdiction, as the Managing Director had no disciplinary control over petitioner. The charge memo issued was thus without jurisdiction, therefore, necessity arose to issue second charge memo by the competent authority. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, respondent no.2 could not hold enquiry or punish the petitioner, cannot be accepted, as Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, clearly lays down, that the penalty of dismissal can only be imposed by the lending authority, therefore, it was only within the competent of respondent no.2 to impose punishment of dismissal from service, and respondent no.1 did not have any jurisdiction to do so. 16. Under Rule 16, even if enquiry would have been conducted by respondent no.1, then also he was bound to send the enquiry report to respondent no.2, for taking appropriation action against petitioner. 17. The Rule 16-A rather makes it clear, that it is only the appointing authority, who is alone competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person on deputation, with the Corporation, Organization or Local authority. 18. 17. The Rule 16-A rather makes it clear, that it is only the appointing authority, who is alone competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the person on deputation, with the Corporation, Organization or Local authority. 18. The respondent no.1 was only bound to assist respondent no.2, in conducting enquiry against the petitioner, which has been done in this case, therefore, no fault can be found with holding of departmental enquiry and imposing punishment against petitioner. 19. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 16-B to contend, that it was not possible for respondent no.2 to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner or to impose punishment. This contention is again misconceived, as this rule is applicable only in the case of employees of the Companies, Corporation, Organization or autonomous body or other authority, who are sent on deputation to the Government. The case of the petitioner is covered under Rule 16-A. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, that there is no violation of Rules 16-A. 20. The petitioner also cannot take any advantage of fact, that the charge sheet was issued by respondent no.1, as the said charge sheet was without jurisdiction, respondent no.1 rightly did not proceed further after issuing charge sheet and asked the competent authority to take action against the petitioner and only rendered necessary assistance. 21. Nothing has been pointed out against the conduct of enquiry by enquiry officer, rather it is admitted case, that the embezzled amount was deposited by petitioner, on it coming to notice of respondent no.1, on account of Audit objection . 22. The charge of temporary misappropriation is serious misconduct, for which punishment of dismissal from service, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. 23. Consequently, finding no merits, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.