The enquiry officer appointed by the Registrar sent numberices to the respondent to attend the enquiry but the respondent declined to do so.
By an application dated September 23 1988, he asked for perusal of certain records and files which according to him were quite essential for the purpose of preparing the statement of defence by him.
He also stated that his duty is to supply only those documents which are relevant to the charges and number each and every document asked for by the respondent.
On September 22 1991 the respondent was served with orders removing him from the service.
Perumal was a Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies under the Government of Tamil Nadu.
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissions which was companysulted in the matters recommended the removal of the respondent.
He seems to have addressed certain further representations to the same effect.
J U D G M E N T P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
A Review Petition filed by the respondent was rejected by the Government whereupon he approached the Tamil Nadu Tribunal by way of O.A.No.1 1053 of 1992.
As a matter of fact, he was to retire from service on September 30, 1991.
The enquiry officer thereupon perused the records and submitted a report holding both the charges as established.
The respondent did number furnish a reply to the memo of charges.
THE 16TH DAY OF July, 1996 Present Honble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy Honble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen Krishnamurthy, T.Harish Kumar, V.Rama Subramaniam, Advs.
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal allowing the original Application filed by the respondent.
He was suspended pending enquiry into certain grave charges which are set out in the memo of charges dated November 1987.
A companyy of the enquiry officers report was companymunicated to the respondent who submitted a detailed representation.
The respondent Thiru K.v.
On September 26, 1989, the Registrar of Co operative Societies who had served the memo of charges and to whom the respondent had made representations for supply of documents wrote to the respondent asking him to specify how the records asked for by him were relevant to the charges framed.
There are two charges and in support of each charges supporting material and particular 5 are elaborately set out.
It appears that the respondent did number companyply with the said letter of the Registrar.
for the appellant Venkataramani and S.M.Garg, Advs.
The respondent.
for the Respondents J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. THIRU K.V.PERUMAL ORS.
Heard the companynsel for the parties.
