Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4047
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.N. BASHA
R. Pitchandi
Versus
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Office at Panagal Buildings & Others
W.P.No.18588 of 2010
Decided on : 23-09-2011
For the Petitioner:S. Mani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:N. Inbanathan, Govt. Advocate (Forests).
The central legal point established is that differential treatment in disciplinary action among co-delinquents, when they are identically placed, amounts to discrimination and is impermissible.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Forest Department - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(a) - M.Raghavelu v. Govt. of A.P - Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. And Others v. Girish Chandra Sarma - N.Nandagopalan v. The Secretary to Government - [Rule 17(a)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order imposing a two-year stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, following disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was discriminatory, as one co-delinquent was exonerated while the petitioner and another co-delinquent were punished. The court relied on precedents to establish that such differential treatment amounted to discrimination.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disparity in punishment among co-delinquents and the applicability of precedents in cases of discriminatory disciplinary action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when employees are involved in the same incident, the department should proceed against all or none, and there is no discretion to proceed against some and not others. The court applied this principle to set aside the impugned order and directed promotion for the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with a direction to give promotion to the petitioner as Forester if eligible.
1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the order passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Aanai.No.A.A2/29499/2009 dated 27.06.2010 and consequently, directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner as Forester on par with his juniors.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as a Watcher in the Forest Department in the year 1986 through the employment exchange and he was promoted as Forest Guard on 10.06.1988. On 05.11.2007, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, containing single charge against the petitioner and two others. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 07.05.2008 holding that the allegations of conspiracy is not proved but the charge of dereliction to duty proved against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the Enquiry Officer's report on 28.07.2008. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect, as per its proceedings dated 15.09.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 23.12.2008, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal as per its order dated 28.01.2009. The petitioner has also filed a revision before the first respondent against the order of the Appellate Authority on 18.03.2009. As the same was not disposed of, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.9842/2010 and this Court by the order dated 05.05.2010, directed the first respondent to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.06.2010 was passed by the first respondent enhancing the punishment by imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the above said prayer.
3. Mr.S.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that along with the petitioner two other delinquents have been subjected to departmental proceedings and all the delinquents have been found not guilty in respect of the charges, but only the petitioner and one other co-delinquent have been awarded with the punishment of stoppage of increment. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority exonerated the first co-delinquent from all the charges and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the second co-delinquent has been awarded with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. It is further contended that there is disparity in respect of awarding punishment to the petitioner and to the other co-delinquents, as one co-delinquent was totally exonerated and the petitioner and the other co-delinquent has been awarded with the punishment of stoppage of increment, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there should not be any different treatment for one delinquent and other co-delinquent. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) M.Raghavelu v. Govt. of A.P and Another reported in (1997) 10 SCC 779.
(2) Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. And Others v. Girish Chandra Sarma reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206.
(3) N.Nandagopalan v. The Secretary to Government reported in 2007 Writ L.R.52.
4.Per contra, Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents. It is co
