Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3612
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
P. Ramesh Babu & Another
Versus
The Registrar Pondicherry University Puducherry & Others
W.P.Nos.23929 & 23930 of 2009
Decided on : 11-08-2011
For the Petitioners:N.R. Chandran, Sr. Counsel for M/s. R. Muthukannu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.V. Bharathi, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principle that disciplinary authorities are only required to provide reasons when disagreeing with enquiry officer's findings, and clarifies that the concept of double jeopardy does not apply to service law.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - Pondicherry University Act, 1985 - Sections 4(5), 6 - The judgment discusses the misconduct of two employees, the penalties imposed on them, and the legal principles governing disciplinary actions under the Pondicherry University Act, 1985.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employed as Assistant and Junior Assistant at Pondicherry University, were charged with misconduct related to financial irregularities and tampering with examination records. Both were subjected to departmental inquiries and subsequently penalized with reduction in pay scale and compulsory retirement, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charges of misconduct against the petitioners to be serious and upheld the penalties imposed by the University's Executive Council. It rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding lack of reasoning in the orders, selective action, and the participation of the Registrar in the appeal proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the adequacy of reasoning in the disciplinary orders, alleged selective action against the petitioners, and the participation of the Registrar in the appeal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority is only required to provide reasons when disagreeing with the enquiry officer's findings. It also emphasized that the Registrar's role was limited to official correspondence and not decision-making. The court further clarified that the concept of double jeopardy does not apply to service law and that penalties imposed were within the legal framework.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the penalties imposed on the petitioners and emphasizing the limited scope for judicial review in such matters.
1. The petitioner in the first writ petition (W.P.No.23929 of 2009) was employed as an Assistant in the Department of French in the respondent/ Pondicherry University. He has filed the writ petition seeking to challenge the rejection of his appeal filed against the penalty of reduction to lower time scale of pay, communicated vide order dated 26.6.2009, as well as the earlier order of rejection dated 19.1.2009.
2. Likewise, in the second writ petition (W.P.No.23930 of 2009), the petitioner had challenged the order dated 6.7.2009, wherein and by which he was imposed with a penalty of compulsory retirement. In that case, the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the respondent/ University.
3. Both the writ petitions were admitted on 23.11.2009. On notice from this Court, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.23929 of 2009 on 19.7.2011 and in W.P.No.23930 of 2009 on 8.6.2011.
4.1. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.23929 of 2009), the petitioner (P.Ramesh Babu) was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk in the year 1986 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant on 12.1.1995 and subsequently, as Senior Assistant/Office Manager on 6.11.2000. When he was working as Senior Assistant/Office Manager in the Academic II Section of the University, in the year 2003, he was looking after the duty of issuing transcripts of the answer sheets for verification.
4.2. A complaint was received on 14.11.2003 from K.Geetha Nayak, a Ph.D. student attached to the School of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, and it was informed to the University by the Bank officials that the challans given to K.Geetha Nayak by the petitioner, as a proof of remittance of money for obtaining transcripts, are fake and it was found that while the challans carried the bank cash seal, there was no official's signature and no cash remittance was made to the University.
4.3. The petitioner was, therefore, issued a charge memo on 9.12.2003, asking him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted explanation on 26.12.2003. Thereafter, a random check was made on the financial transactions and it was found that most of the transcripts of the answer sheets for the year 2002-2003 were untraceable. But, on scrutiny of the register maintained by the petitioner for recording the challans, it was found that several amounts had not been remitted to the University account.
4.4. A preliminary Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the issue on 19.7.2005. After enquiring the Bank Manager and K.Geetha Nayak and after perusing the relevant material, the Committee noted that fake bank seal was used and there was a deviation of procedure for obtaining required application in the prescribed format and hence, the Committee recommended initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner.
4.5. Further, irregularities in the matter of utilization of house building advance was also noticed. While the petitioner has drawn an advance of ` 1,90,750/- towards first and second instalments, he was directed to complete the construction of house within 24 months. As he failed to intimate the progress of the construction, he was also asked to explain the same by a memo dated 1.7.2005. In his reply dated 15.7.2005, he has stated that the construction has already reached the plinth level and requested for an inspection and for release of third instalment. But, during the inspection, it was found that only a dummy foundation was laid with a view to mislead the inspection team and hence, he was issued with a memo dated 14.9.2005, asking for his explanation. Another inspection of his construction was carried out in his presence by the Executive Engineer and two Assistant Engineers on 25.9.2005 and it was found that the earlier allegation was true.
4.6. In the light of these commissions and omissions made by the petitioner, it was decided to initiate disciplinary action and, therefore, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.
