Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 1091
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
S. Babuji
Versus
The Registrar (General)& Others
W.P.Nos.26239 of 2005 and 26329 of 2005
Decided on : 28-03-2008
For the Petitioner:S. Partahsarathy, S.C., S. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Sreenivasan, A.G.P.
In disciplinary proceedings, there should be some evidence to prove the charge, and the punishment should be appropriate for the misconduct.
Headnote:
Certiorarified Mandamus - Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 - Rule 21 - Summary Dismissal
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a driver, was suspended for attending duty in intoxication at the residence of the Principal District Judge. After an enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and proper, and the petitioner's misconduct of intoxication was proved. The Court upheld the dismissal order, stating that dismissal was the appropriate punishment for the misconduct.
Issues: The issues included the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings, the appropriateness of the punishment, and the authority of the Principal District Judge to initiate the action.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in disciplinary proceedings, there should be some evidence to prove the charge, and the High Court can interfere if the punishment is found to be without jurisdiction, not based on evidence, or arbitrary. The Court also emphasized that an individual's past record should not be taken into account in arriving at a finding.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
M. Venugopal, J.
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for the relief of issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for all relevant records pertaining to the impugned dismissal order dated 02.06.2004 issued in proceedings No.R.O.C.No.2 of 2004 passed by the second respondent and the consequent Appeal Rejection Order issued in R.O.C.No.3899/2004/C1 dated 02.05.2005 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as driver with continuity of service, backwages and with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.
2. The writ petitioner serving as driver in the Principal District Judges Court, Ramanathapuram has been placed under suspension from service on 20.05.2003 by the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram (second respondent) for having attended duty in intoxication at the residence of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
3. A Memo dated 29.09.2003 was issued to the writ petitioner stating that on 20.05.2003 at 10.00 a.m. when he attended the residence of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram for his official duties he was found drunk, has confirmed by the medical checkup report and thereby violated Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and called upon to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation dated 10. 2003 inter alia stating that when he went to the District Judges residence on 20.05.2003 at 10.00 a.m. to attend his duty he has not consumed liquor and that he has not violated Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and that he was suffering from stomach ache and cough and not keeping well from 16.05.2003 and therefore, he was taking tablets and medicine as per Doctors advice till 21.05.2003 and that he has not committed any mistake and prayed for revocation of his suspension.
4. The charge framed against the writ petitioner on 011. 2003 is that while attending the residence of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram on 20.05.2003 at 10.00 a.m. for his official duties was found in intoxication and when he was directed to take off the staff car, he was unable to drive the car and thereby violated Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and negligent in the discharge of his official duties.
5. The second respondent/Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram in his proceedings dated 211. 2003 appointed the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram as Enquiry Officer and appointed the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram as Presenting Officer in regard to the conduct of enquiry against the writ petitioner as per rules and submit enquiry report within a month.
6. The Enquiry Officer viz., Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram after examining witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 and D.W.1, the delinquent and marking Exs.D.1 to D.3 inter alia came to the conclusion that at the time of occurrence on 20.05.2003 at 10.00 a.m., the writ petitioner/driver while attending the residence of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram for his official duties and when he was directed to take off the staff car at that time in his blood and urine alcohol content was found at 69% and 58% and held that the charge against the delinquent was proved.
7. On receipt of report of the Enquiry Officer viz., Sub Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 26.02.2004, the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram by his proceedings dated 11.03.2004 directed the writ petitioner/delinquent to submit his further representation if any within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said communication by enclosing the copy of the said report.
8. The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, being the Disciplinary Authority by his proceedings dated 02.06.2004 after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner/delinquent dated 24.03.2004 passed final orders holdin
