Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 323
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN
N.Vedachalam - Appellant
Versus
Chennai Metropolitan Water & Another - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.18373 OF 1999
Decided On : 03 March 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the requirement for the employer to substantiate charges by leading evidence and the avoidance of bias in appellate decisions.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings - Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations - Regulation 10(2), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18 - The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice as the delinquent was examined straightaway without the employer substantiating the charges by leading evidence, and the original authority who imposed the punishment also took part in considering the appellate order, which was biased. The impugned proceedings were quashed with liberty given to the respondents to proceed de novo if so decided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent Board, was dismissed from service based on charges of deficiency in stock and improper accounting of materials. The petitioner denied the charges, and the disciplinary proceedings were found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice as the delinquent was examined straightaway without the employer substantiating the charges by leading evidence, and the original authority who imposed the punishment also took part in considering the appellate order, which was biased.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the violation of Regulation 10(2) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, the bias in the appellate authority's decision, and the relief entitled to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were in contravention of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978, and that the original authority's participation in the appellate decision was biased, violating principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned proceedings were quashed, with liberty given to the respondents to proceed de novo if so decided.
The writ petitioner, an employee of the respondent Board has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in his Proc.No.CMWSSB/P&A/VC3/8914/94 dated 19.4.1999 as confirmed by the first respondent in Proc.No.CMWSSB/VIGILANCE/VC2/26070/99 dated 30.9.1999 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr. C.Selvaraju, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.B.Santhakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. In this case, the counsel for the writ petitioner advanced the two substantial contentions:-
(A) The original authority who passed the impugned order was also a member of the appellate authority and confirmed the proceedings which is contrary to principles of natural justice.
(B) It is contended that in terms of the service regulations framed by the Board in respect of charges framed, the Board has to establish the charges in the domestic enquiry by letting in oral or documentary evidence and merely on surmises and without any proof whatsoever, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges. In other words, no evidence at all has been let in to establish the charges framed against the petitioner but the petitioner has been straight-away examined and orders have been passed which is contrary to all fundamentals or disciplinary proceedings.
4. The petitioner was holding the post of Administrative Officer in charge of Stores/materials Department while alleging that there has been large scale deficiency in the stock to the tune of Rs.36,34,920.82 paise as well as excess materials to the value of Rs.90,400.69 paise, four charges were framed against the petitioner. The following Charges were framed:-
"Charge No.1 :-
That he has not handed over the charges in spite of memo with ulterior motive to suppress the fact of willful and deliberate improper receipts and issues of materials which resulted in shortage of Rs.36,34,920.82. His failure to hand over the charges till the date of his suspension, clearly shows his deliberate disobedience to his superiors and office instructions which leads to serious misconduct under regulation 6(1) of MMWSS Board employees (D&A) Regulations.
Charge No.2 :-
That he has not performed his duties as Stores Manager carefully. The receipts and issues of materials are made without observing the required procedures which resulted in shortage of materials to the value of Rs.36.34.920.82. His negligence in duty and inefficient management of stores amount to serious misconduct under regulation 6(37) of MMWSS Board employees (D&A) Regulations, 1978 and his dishonesty in connection with Board's property or transactions amounts to serious misconduct under Regulation 6(23) of MMWSS Board Employees Service (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1978.
Charge No.3 :-
That he has issued large number of items on loan basis without authority for a value of Rs.39,20 lakhs as on 8.6.1994 and the same is still unadjusted. The loan transaction carried out by him is ultra vires and resulted locking up of Board's money by way of loan of material which amounts to serious misconduct under Regulation 6(37) of, MMWSS Board Employees Service (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1978.
Charge No.4 :-
That his act of improper accounting of materials and maintaining of stores records resulted in shortage of materials to the value of Rs.36,34,920.82 and excess of materials to the value of Rs.90,400.69. His carelessness and indifference attitude in maintaining the stores in his custody resulted in loss to the Board and that he derelicted in his duties and responsibilities under Regulation 6(20) of MMWSS Board (D&A) Regulations, 1978.
5. The petitioner denied the charges and the disciplinary authority appointed Special Deputy Collector,(Taxes) as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry in respect of the said four charges. It is stat
