IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where it is found that enquiry is not conducted properly and/or same is in violation of principles of natural justice, in that case, Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and matter is to be remanded to Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with enquiry from stage of violation of principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 29.10.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 2735 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent – original writ petitioner into service and pay arrears payable to him, the District Collector, Salem District, Tamil Nadu has preferred the present appeal.

2. That a departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, who was a Panchayat Assistant, for having committed the misconduct of misappropriation of funds pertaining to Samuthram Panchayat in connivance with the erstwhile President of the said Panchayat. By order dated 25.09.2006, an order of punishment was passed against the respondent – delinquent. The order of punishment was the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1710 of 2007 before the High Court.

2.1 By judgment and order dated 07.01.2009, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition by quashing the order of dismissal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal observing that no inquiry whatsoever was held as required under the law. That thereafter, on remand, the inquiry was conducted after affording an opportunity to the delinquent to defend his case. However, without giving a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and without calling for his comments on the Inquiry Officer’s Report, a fresh order dated 11.06.2009 came to be passed. The delinquent – respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2012.

2.2 The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and ordered reinstatement with back wages by observing that the order of dismissal dated 11.06.2009 was in breach of principles of Natural Justice as the copy of the Inquiry Report was not given to the delinquent and without calling for his comments on the Inquiry Officer’s Report, the order of dismissal was passed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench.

2.3 By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge to reinstate the respondent with full back wages. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal before this Court.

3. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the respondent was charge sheeted for a very serious offence of misappropriation of the amount belonging to the Panchayat. It is submitted that if the Hon’ble High Court found the order of punishment in breach of Natural Justice, in that case, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry form the point that it stood vitiated. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 as well as in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh, 2022 SCC Online SC 341.

3.1 Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court and to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4.1 it is submitted by Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent that in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench have committed any error in setting aside the order of dismissal and or