Servant Conduct Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.08.2007 stating that after getting appropriate legal advice, he contracted the second marriage after obtaining consent with his first wife. Not satisfied with such explanation, the respondent appointed an enquiry officer who, after conducting enquiry, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. On receipt of such report, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore on 24.03.2011, the respondent issued a notice to impose the punishments as contemplated under 19 (i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the first writ petition being WP No. 18330 of 2010 and it was dismissed by this Court with an observation that the disciplinary authority shall bear in mind that it is not necessary only to impose major punishments but also the one specified in Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.03.2011 was issued by the respondent which was again challenged by the petitioner by filing WP No. 8377 of 2011. This Court, by order dated 31.03.2011 passed an order setting aside the show cause notice dated 24.03.2011 of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. It was specifically directed that the respondent shall record his reasons for differing the views of the enquiry officer with respect to each of the charges and communicate it to the petitioner, meaning thereby, the respondent ought to have issued a show cause notice in which he has to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer with respect to each of the charges and sought the explanation of the petitioner. The respondent, without doing so, passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service without first issuing a notice to the petitioner by disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer with respect to each of the charges. In other words, before passing the impugned order, the respondent ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner to submit his explanation in which he ought to have expressed his conclusion for disagreement of the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, I find force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
