11.From materials on record and the documents relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is seen that the learned Senior Counsel is relying on the documents, which were filed before the Arbitrator. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, those documents do not form part of the annexure to the charge memo. In view of the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, those documents cannot be looked into and considered by this Court in a writ proceeding. The petitioner can produce those documents before the Enquiry Officer and substantiate his contention that he is innocent and has not committed any misconduct. Further, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner alone was singled out and disciplinary proceedings initiated with mala fide intention is contrary to the facts. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the charge memo has been issued to Palanivel and the petitioner and the Government, vide proceedings dated 10.10.2019, appointed Mr.C.Vijayaraj Kumar, as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the said S.P.Palanivel, the petitioner and R.Ravikumar, Divisional Accountant (u/s), Construction and Maintenance, Ooty, then Divisional Accountant (NH), Coimbatore. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the said contention.
