The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of providing copies of documents, examination of witnesses, and reasons for accepting the report of the enquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.6762 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent, dated 22. 1997 in G.O.(3D) No.21, Agriculture Department, wherein by which the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect.

3. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 29.01.1998. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.31218 of 2006. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Tank Irrigation and Modernisation Circle, Virudhunagar. Even at the time of filing of the O.A., he was 55 years old and had reached the age of superannuation during the year 2000 and had retired from service.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order, dated 210. 1987. He was also given a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules. The major allegation against the petitioner was that the quality of on farm development (OFD) executed by him was poor and there was a misuse of cement supply for the use in the scheme work at Kunda Dam subdivision. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Executive Engineer (Agriculture Engineering) CAD, Parambikulam Azhiyar Project, Udumalpet. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. He gave a detailed explanation, dated 18.03.1991, denying the charges. He also raised several points regarding the infirmities in the departmental enquiry conducted against him.

5. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the first respondent State consulted the TNPSC. The TNPSC gave its advice, dated 111. 1995. On the basis of the advice and accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the Government imposed the punishment against the petitioner as set out above. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. The respondents also circulated the original records relating to the case of the petitioner.

6. Mr.P.V.S. Giridhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

a) The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a biased manner. He also acted as a Judge and Prosecutor. He further examined and cross examined the petitioner.

b) The documents filed in the enquiry were not marked through any witnesses and the petitioner was not given copies of the documents. He was also not permitted to inspect those documents.

c) The petitioner had examined 4 witnesses in his defence, but they were strangely shown as witnesses for the department.

d) The first respondent did not apply his mind independently, but mechanically accepted the same.

7. Per contra, in the reply affidavit, it is stated that the enquiry officer had acted in terms of the guidelines prescribed under the handbook on disciplinary procedures. It was also stated that the petitioner did not ask for documents in terms of the questionnaire furnished to him. It was admitted that four witnesses were present and the petitioner had examined them in the enquiry. It was also stated that the respondent State had applied its mind before passing the final order of penalty.

8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Workmen and others reported in (1971) 2 SCC 617. He placed reliance upon the following passage found in para 14, which is as follows:

"14. ...But the application of principal of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used. When a document is produced in a Court or a