The requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to provide reasons for differed findings and to seek the views of the delinquent before imposing punishment based on differed findings.

The Original Application in O.A.No.8699 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in May 1964 and he was granted various promotions and he became Tahsildar in July 1992. While so, a charge memo dated 14.04.1995, under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued to him, making eleven (11) allegations. An enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges were not established. However, the third respondent passed an order dated 30.05.1996, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that all the charges, except charge No.8 were established. In view of such a conclusion, he imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.

3. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 01.08.1996 before the second respondent. The appeal was partly allowed by the second respondent, by an order dated 27.01.1997. The Appellate Authority held that while the third respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the third respondent did not give any reasons for his disagreement and that the third respondent simply held that the charges were established. In view of such a conclusion of the second respondent, the second respondent set aside the order of the third respondent and remanded the matter to the third respondent to decide the matter afresh. The order of the second respondent in this regard is extracted here-under:

TAMIL

4. On remand, the third respondent, again passed an order dated 10.06.1997, imposing the same punishment. However, the third respondent held that the charge Nos.2,6,7,9,10 and 11 were established and other charges were not established.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 22.08.1997 before the second respondent. This time, the Appellate Authority, the second respondent, confirmed the order of the third respondent, by an order dated 29.07.1998.

6. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 111. 1998 before the first respondent. The first respondent also confirmed the orders of the Appellate Authority that confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority, by an order in G.O.(D)No.461, Revenue (Ser) 4(1) Department, dated 09.09.1999.

7. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.8699 of 2000 (W.P.No.40600 of 2006) praying to quash the order dated 09.09.1999 of the first respondent, confirming the order dated 29.07.1998 of the second respondent and order dated 10.06.1997 of the third respondent.

8. Heard Mr.M.Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent committed the very same mistake that was committed by the third respondent in the earlier order dated 30.05.1996, when the revised order dated 10.06.1997 was passed. That is, the third respondent did not give any reasons for his differed findings. He has taken me through the order of the third respondent dated 10.06.1997. It is also submitted that the law is well settled that whenever a differed finding is recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority is enjoined to furnish the differed findings to the delinquent and to seek his views on the differed findings. The learned counsel has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.ARULKUMAR VS. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HUDCO) reported in 2009 (3) CTC 388, in this regard. The Division Bench, after considering various judgments of the Honourable Apex Court on the point, held that if the Disciplinary Authority failed to hear the petitioner on the differed findings, the punishment based on such a differed findings is vitiated.

10. The learned Government Advocate made his submissions based on the instructions.

11. I have considered the submissions ma