The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employee and providing an opportunity for the employee to respond before imposing punishment.

The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai by filing O.A.No.2707 of 1997 challenging the impugned order dated 21. 1997 of the first respondent imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The said O.A. had been transferred to the file of this Court, on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.26477 of 2006.

2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner started his career in Pollachi Municipality in the year 1975 and in the year 1992 he was promoted as Revenue Assistant. A charge memo dated 11. 1996 was issued to him and an enquiry was conducted for the same. The Enquiry Officer seems to have submitted a report and the first respondent, differing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, had passed the impugned order dated 21. 1997-imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Challenging the said punishment, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. which has been transferred to this Court, as referred to above.

3. A reply affidavit had been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it has been pointed out that due to certain irregularities in the calculation and remittance of the provisional tax by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and subsequently, after perusal of the records, a charge memo dated 11. 1996 was served on him duly mentioning the lapses and irregularities and 15 days time was granted to the petitioner for offering his defence statement. The Municipal Commissioner appointed the Municipal Health Officer for conducing enquiry and the enquiry was also conducted on 112. 1996. After thoroughly analysing the report of the Enquiry Officer and the defence statement submitted by the petitioner, the Municipal Commissioner came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and passed final orders imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The order imposing punishment on the petitioner was served on him on 21. 1997. As per Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services Rules, 1970, the petitioner should have preferred an appeal to the Director of Municipal Administration, Chennai, who is the appellate authority. The petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. In order to gain further time, he made an application to the disciplinary authority on 13. 1997 to issue a copy of the enquiry report conducted on 12. 1996. Due to administrative reasons, the request of the petitioner was not complied with. In the reply affidavit, it is therefore sought for the dismissal of the petition.

4. Mr. R. Muthukannu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended,

(a) The report of the Enquiry Officer has not at all been furnished to the petitioner;

(b) Even assuming that the original authority who has imposed punishment, viz., the first respondent herein had differed from the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved, the first respondent ought to have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner stating why he differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation and thereafter, the first respondent should have passed the order in one way or the other; and

(c) Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the said accepted procedure had not been followed and hence, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 21. 1997 is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had been appointed and he also filed his report and since the first respondent had not ac