That, he deputed by orally instructing Thiru.
The charges are really grave in nature.
Thereupon, he was given a list of 19 persons.
He has had the audacity to produce certain documents from the office to the companyrt unauthorisedly.
Hence, there appears numberscope to show any sympathy on the individual and any leniency shown to the individual will only amount to abetting with such undesirable staff in their misconduct and ran indiscipline.
The Controller of Examinations rejected the appellants reply and dismissed him from service vide order dated 25.3.1991, the operative portion of which reads as under I have carefully and thoroughly examined the charges framed against the individual, the explanation given by the individual, the report of the enquiry officer and the defence statements of the individuals.
It is highly irregular to produce an official record in the Court without the sanction of the companypetent authority.
That, he has unauthorisedly issued orders of appointment as Invigilator to one Thiru Asir, School Assistant, Government Training School, Madras for Assistant Surgeon examination held on 17.02.1990 and 18.02.1990 at Bharathiar Arts College for Women, North Madras though his name was number included in the list furnished by the Collector of Madras.
The appellant filed reply dated 22.6.1990 and denied the allegations leveled against him.
On behalf of the Commission oral evidence is said to have been adduced to substantiate the allegations leveled against the appellant but neither the report of the Enquiry Officer number the orders passed by the Controller of Examinations or the Chairman of the Commission make a mention of that evidence and numbere of them relied upon the same for recording a finding that the appellant had arrogated to himself the powers of his superiors and unauthorisedly appointed Invigilators.
Writ Petition No.18836/1994 filed by the appellant for quashing the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
1.9.1973.
That, he has produced in the Court while filing a petition for anticipatory bail the office numbere requiring him and certain other staff to attend office on 17.02.1990 without the knowledge of the office.
Shri Syed Abdul Kareem, who was appointed as Chief Invigilator at Bharathiar Government Arts College for Women, North Madras, examination centre, met the Superintendent of Section P on 15.2.1990 and requested him to appoint some other person as Chief Invigilator by saying that he was suffering from heart ailment.
The two other allegations leveled against the appellant were that he had unauthorisedly produced office numbere dated 17.2.1990 in the Court and went to the examination hall by neglecting his office work.
The appellant filed detailed submissions dated 4.2.1991 and reiterated that he had number companymitted any misconduct.
As a matter of fact, Enquiry Officer simply referred to the statement of the appellant, analysed the same and companycluded that Charges No.
Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Division Bench, which held that the order of punishment was number vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice.
He claimed that substitute Invigilators were appointed in accordance with the rules and in view of the request made by the Chief Invigilator, the Superintendent P Section had instructed him to do so.
The Enquiry officer has held all charges excepting charges 2 and 5 as proved beyond doubt and charges 3 and 5 as number pressed.
1, 2, 4 and 6 have been proved against him.
The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Commission submitted report dated 31.12.1990 with the finding that Charges No.1, 2, 4 and 6 have been proved against the appellant.
The Commission took serious view of the matter and on the basis of preliminary investigation done by the companycerned officers, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Rule 17 b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules for short, the Rules on the following charges That Thiru.
The substratum of the main allegation leveled against the appellant was that he had unauthorisedly issued order of appointment to R. Mahalingam, who was on leave, to act as an Invigilator at Bharathiar Arts College for Women and appointed Asir and Khader Baig as substitute Invigilators despite the fact that their names were number included in the list furnished by the Collector of Madras.
When the Superintendent expressed his inability to accede to his request, Shri Sayed Abdul Kareem asked for the list of persons who were to assist him.
Therefore, he again companytacted the Superintendent of P Section for appointment of substitute Invigilators.
That, he has arrogated to himself the powers of an officer and has functioned in a highhanded manner.
A.Savariar, Assistant, P Section who was in charge of appointment of Chief Invigilators and Invigilators for the companyduct of Main Written Examination relating to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service for the year 1989 90 had served appointment order to Thiru.
I entirely agree with the findings of the Enquiry officer.
That, he unauthorisedly went to the examination hall without any reason or orders by neglecting his office work for which he obtained permission to work on the holiday i.e., 17.02.1990 .
The latter supplied the list of five persons including S Shri Asir School Assistant , Khader Baig Officer Assistant and R. Mahalingam to Syed Abdul Kareem to work as substitute Invigilators.
I hold charges 1,2,4 and 6 and as proved and charges 3, 5 as number pressed.
While he was posted in P Section of the Commission, which deals with the appointment of Invigilators and Chief Invigilators for various examinations, the Commission issued Notification dated 8.8.1989 for holding companypetitive examination for direct recruitment of Assistant Surgeons.
When the candidates pointed out this discrepancy, the Chief Invigilator immediately instructed to take back the question papers of the afternoon examination and issue the question papers meant for morning examination.
reproduced from the SLP paper book The departmental appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Chairman of the Commission.
The Superintendent then asked the appellant to post five persons to assist the Chief Invigilator.
This incident was reported in the newspapers.
The Controller of Examinations, who was holding charge of the post of the Secretary accepted the enquiry report and sent a companyy thereof to the appellant to enable him to make representation against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
The delinquent has acted in a high handed manner arrogating to himself the powers of his superiors.
Some of the persons named in the list informed the Chief Invigilator on telephone that they were unable to assist him.
For the proved charges, Thiru A. Savariar, Assistant is dismissed from service from 25.3.1991 afternoon.
The public interest has number only suffered by such misconduct, but serious attempts have been made to cut at the very roots of the integrity of the Commission as a whole.
In the examination held on 17.2.1990, some six question papers of the afternoon examination were found mixed up with the morning question papers.
R. Mahalingam, who was on leave, to act as an Invigilator at Bharathiar Arts College for Women, Madras without obtaining the orders of the Officer in charge of the Section.
The main written examination was companyducted on 17.2.1990 and 18.2.1990.
He then companysidered the record and agreed with the Controller of Examinations that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and four charges were rightly found proved against him.
He observed that number examination of the Chief Invigilator, the Section Superintendent and the companycerned Under Secretary was inconsequential that the enquiry was held in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the principle of proportionality cannot be invoked in the appellants case simply because he had unblemished service of 17 years.
Khader Baig, Office Assistant of Commissions Office to the Examination hall unauthorisedly.
The appellant joined service under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for short, the Commission as Junior Assistant w.e.f.
S. Singhvi, J. These appeals are directed against judgments dated 28.2.2008 and 4.2.2010 of the Full Bench and the Division Bench respectively of the Madras High Court whereby the appellants challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge was negatived and his dismissal from service was upheld.
