Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking an order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.02.2006 passed in G.O. (D) No.129 Labour & Employment (P-1) Department by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to re-instate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including continuity of service. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Industrial Training Institute, North Chennai. Subsequently, he was promoted as Store-keeper and transferred to Industrial Training Institute at Chengalpet during the year 1987. Then he was transferred to Industrial Training Institute at Guindy in the year 1989 and employed till 1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Industrial Training Institute, North Chennai in the year 1997 and worked as Store-keeper till 2004. The Principal of the Industrial Training Institute issued work assignment to all the employees working in the Industrial Training Institute from time to time and accordingly, work assignment order was issued by the third respondent to the petitioner during the year 1993. 4. Mr.S.Thirumalavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the duty of the petitioner as Store-keeper, was to keep the raw materials procured by the first respondent in the store room and supply the same to various departments on demand and as per the work assignment order, he was directed to assist the Assistant/Junior Assistant in Purchase Section from time to time. During the relevant period, the Principal purchased/procured raw materials from several companies, for which the petitioner had no role to play, however, a charge memo under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued on the petitioner. The said charge memo dated 22.01.2003 is consisting of 15 charges. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the categorical averments of the enquiry officer in the report of the departmental enquiry is that the petitioner has not caused any loss to the Government. Though in the enquiry report, in several places, the enquiry officer has stated that there was no loss caused by the petitioner, he has given a self contradictory finding that all the charges were proved except charge No.9. 6. Though in the enquiry report, in several places, the enquiry officer has stated that there was no loss caused by the petitioner, he has given a self contradictory finding that all the charges were proved except charge No.9. 6. In the counter, the respondents have stated that a Special Audit was conducted by the Internal Audit Personnel of the second respondent herein, for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.01.2002 at Government Industrial Training Institute, Chengalpet, on the complaints received, regarding irregularities in the procurement of materials and the said Special Audit Report was submitted to the second respondent on 27.02.2002. The petitioner had been working as Store-keeper for the entire period from 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2002. As per the counter, the following discrepancies/flaws were noticed as per the Special Audit Report: a) Purchases worth Rs.1,11,196/- were procured from unapproved firms. b) Without proper requisition from the concerned Junior Training Officers/Assistant Training Officer, stores were procured. c) Purchase files were dealt by the Store-keeper and Principal without passing through Office Manager/ Administrative Officer. d) Tampering of office records e) Official procedures violated in passing Bills f) Procurement of Table cloth and emergency lamps against provision g) Double payment for single purchase by raising bogus bills h) Seizure of blank letter pads of suppliers from Store-keeper by Special Audit Team i) Opening of tender documents ahead of scheduled date. j) Without proper approval of the principal, Store-keeper has sent quotation requisition letter to suppliers in person. k) Improper admissibility of lorry freights. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was only a Store-keeper and he was not empowered to procure any raw materials, since the concerned authority is the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute. As per the procedure, the concerned file should be sent to the Principal through the Office Manager or Administrative Officer. On the aforesaid circumstances, the charges levelled against the petitioner that he procured materials worth Rs.1,11,196/- is not legally sustainable and there is no material available to raise the said charge against the petitioner, as he was only a Store-keeper. As per the procedure, the concerned file should be sent to the Principal through the Office Manager or Administrative Officer. On the aforesaid circumstances, the charges levelled against the petitioner that he procured materials worth Rs.1,11,196/- is not legally sustainable and there is no material available to raise the said charge against the petitioner, as he was only a Store-keeper. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to page No.110 of the typed set of papers, which contains the averments of the enquiry officer that the petitioner had not purchased any materials on his own accord and no loss has caused by him to the Government, for the charges Nos.3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, though the enquiry officer has given a categorical finding that the petitioner had not purchased any materials on his own accord and he has not caused any loss to the Government, he has given an inconsistent findings that the said charges were proved against the petitioner herein. For charge No.15, the enquiry officer has given a finding that one Smt.S.Devika had stated that the petitioner V.G.Ravichandran, Store-keeper, on verifying the fact relating to procurement tender and the comparative statement prepared by Smt.S.Devika (Junior Assistant), the petitioner asked her to make the statement as per the tender relating to M/s.N.K.Traders and Dahari Traders, business concerns and accordingly, correction was made by her. The enquiry officer has found that the petitioner herein was responsible for the unauthorised corrections made in the comparative statement, however, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said Smt. Devika who was examined as witness, has stated that the correction was made only by her, on the advice of the petitioner, Store-keeper and for the alleged advice given by the petitioner, there is no evidence available on record against the petitioner. 8. It is not in dispute that the said Devika, Junior Assistant, was not under the control of the petitioner and further, except the oral testimony of the said Smt.Devika, nothing is available to show that the correction was made on the advice of the petitioner herein. 8. It is not in dispute that the said Devika, Junior Assistant, was not under the control of the petitioner and further, except the oral testimony of the said Smt.Devika, nothing is available to show that the correction was made on the advice of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to page No.72 of the typed set of papers wherein the Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, the third respondent herein by his order dated 18.09.2002 in Na.Ka.No.2306/ep3/02 has instructed the Junior Assistant to send the files relating to procurement through Store-keeper, Office Manager and Administrative Officer. As argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the alleged occurrence relates to the year 2001 and that the circular relates to the date 18.09.2002. Even as per the circular, the petitioner cannot be construed as a deciding authority in respect of the purchase or procurement of any raw materials. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner had not maintained the registers and records pertaining to the duty assigned to the Store-keeper and also referred para No.6 of the counter filed by the respondents. As per the counter, the Store-keeper of the Government Industrial Training Institute has to perform the following duties, after the initial work is done by the concerned Purchase Section Junior Assistant/Assistants: a) Obtaining requisition letter from the concerned Junior Training Officer/Assistant Training Officer for procuring materials required by them. b) He has to verify with the Stock Register whether the materials required are available in stores. c) If not, he has to call for quotation from the Government approved firms. d) He has to prepare comparative statement of the firms who have quoted. e) After getting approval of the Principal, Purchase Orders have to be placed with the firms who have quoted less. f) To get the certificate of the concerned Junior Training Officer/Assistant Training Officer/Training Officer to the effect that the goods received is in good condition and according to the specifications. g) To enter the goods received details in goods receivable book and get the authentication of the higher-ups. h) Issue of goods/materials to the sections under proper indent. i) To pass the bills of the firms subject to the availability of funds. 10. g) To enter the goods received details in goods receivable book and get the authentication of the higher-ups. h) Issue of goods/materials to the sections under proper indent. i) To pass the bills of the firms subject to the availability of funds. 10. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, out of this work to be attended by the petitioner herein, the delinquency relating to (b) and (d) stated above, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the store-keeper had to verify with the stock register whether the materials required are available in stores and on verifying charges, it is seen that no such allegation was made against the petitioner herein and he has to prepare comparative statement of the firms who have quoted the price. However, as per the evidence of Mrs.S.Devika, Junior Assistant, the comparative statement was prepared only by her and correction was also made by her. The defence is that she made the correction only on the advice of the Store-keeper. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said witness was not examined in the presence of the petitioner and there was no opportunity to cross examine the witness, even if the evidence is taken into consideration that would not be sufficient to frame charge or allegation against the petitioner, since the correction was admittedly done by her. 11. In the counter para No.13, the respondents have stated that as per the allocation of work, the files pertaining to purchase/ procurement has to be maintained by the Junior Assistant of the purchase section, but as Store-keeper, the petitioner was responsible for ensuring whether the quotations were called for from the approved firms and as a Store-keeper, the petitioner cannot disown his responsibility for the scam. It has been further stated by the respondents that as per the work schedule, the work relating to calling quotations and based on the quotations, preparing the comparative statement and placing purchase orders with the firm quoted low rests with the Junior Assistant and when the file was submitted to the Store-keeper, the petitioner being the Store-keeper should have ensured that the concerned file is routed through the Office Manager before getting the approval of the Principal. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the averments relating to para No.3 (a&b), there could be no direct allegation or charge framed against the petitioner so as to attract rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 12. It is not in dispute that the proper authority passing the order regarding the procurement made is only the Principal of Industrial Training Institute and not the petitioner, a store-keeper and further as per the procedure and even as per the subsequent office order of the files relating to the procurement, the same should be routed through the Office Manager and the Administrative Officer and the deciding authority for the purchase/procurement is only the principal. On the aforesaid circumstances I could find no rationale in fixing the liability so as to make major delinquency against the petitioner, since he was only the Store-keeper under the respondents. 13. Though the enquiry officer has given findings for all the charges, almost for all the charges he has made averments that there was no loss caused to the Government by the petitioner and the petitioner is not responsible for the loss. However, in the concluding portion, the enquiry officer has stated that all the charges except 9, i.e. charges 1 to 8 and 10 to 14 were proved, which seems to be a self contradictory finding. Regarding the allegation of correction made in the comparative statement, the finding perverse, since the finding is against the evidence of the witness Smt.S.Devika, Junior Assistant, who has admitted that the corrections were made by her, while she was examined as witness. It is also an admitted fact that she was not examined in the presence of the petitioner, hence her statement that she had made the correction on the advice of the petitioner is unsustainable and not binding on the petitioner. 14. As pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is seen that the order of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner, after getting opinion from the Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission. The main charges levelled against the petitioner are based on the procurement of certain materials for the Industrial Training Institute, though the authority to purchase the materials is only the Principal of the Training Institute and not the petitioner. The main charges levelled against the petitioner are based on the procurement of certain materials for the Industrial Training Institute, though the authority to purchase the materials is only the Principal of the Training Institute and not the petitioner. It could be the duty of any Junior Assistant or Store-keeper to place the tender before the authority. If the tenders were in order, it could have been the duty of the Principal for passing appropriate order of rejecting the tender. The same were placed for orders to the Principal only through the Office Manager and the Administrative Officer. Hence, it is strange as to how the responsibility of purchase/procurement could be fixed on the petitioner who was only a subordinate official to the Principal. 15. On the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be fair or relevant on the part of the respondents to say that the petitioner a Store-keeper had purchased or procured the materials. Admittedly no such power was vested with the petitioner being a Storekeeper. Similarly for making any correction in the tender form or comparative statement, on the advice of the petitioner herein, there is no evidence available against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that Smt.S.Devika, the Junior Assistant, was not under the control of the petitioner to give any direction for correction being made. Even if the reports are not maintained with regard to function of the Store-keeper, it could have been different charges under rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, ultimately that could have been proved by the respondents as per procedure known to law. 16. In the instant case, it is seen that for the scam in procuring materials in Industrial Training Institute, charges have been framed against the store-keeper by making the petitioner a scapegoat leaving the concerned officer who was authorities in making the purchase/procurement. Though the enquiry officer has categorically stated that the petitioner has not caused any loss to the Government, the enquiry officer has given a self contradictory finding that all the charges except charge No.9 have been proved. The finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, since the same is against evidence and further the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the form of a compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate, hence, the same is not legally sustainable. 17. The finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, since the same is against evidence and further the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the form of a compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate, hence, the same is not legally sustainable. 17. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner with continuity of service and all pensionary benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. In respect of back wages, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of a written representation and if, any such representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the first respondent, according to law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.