Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1692
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
L. Anand
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Transport Department & Others
W.P.No.747 of 2007
Decided On : 12-04-2010
For the Petitioner:Anand for M/s.Anand and Surya for R. Tholkappian, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R. Neelakandan, Government Advocate, R2 & R3, Vijayan, for G. Sankaran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to adhere to principles of natural justice, including the need for charges to be maintainable, findings to be based on evidence, and reasons to be provided for decisions.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Service Dispute - Common Service Rules of the Corporation - Rule 28(1) - Rule 28(r) - Rule 6(14) - Rule 23 - Rule 20(v) - Issue No.(i) to (vi)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former General Manager in a State-owned Transport Corporation, was charged with misconduct for depositing award amounts without prior approval, leading to a reduction in basic pay. The petitioner challenged the charges and subsequent orders through a writ petition, arguing that the charges were baseless and the punishment was without application of mind. The respondents contended that the petitioner violated government instructions and was not entitled to challenge the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the charges were not maintainable as the petitioner acted in good faith to protect the Corporation's interest. The Enquiry Officer's findings were deemed perverse and the disciplinary authority's acceptance of the report without serving it to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice. The court also ruled that the appellate authority's non-speaking order and the dismissal of the review petition on the ground of delay were unsustainable.
Issues: The court considered six issues: (i) the maintainability of the charges, (ii) the justification of the Enquiry Officer's findings, (iii) the acceptance of the Enquiry Officer's report by the disciplinary authority, (iv) the requirement for the disciplinary authority to record its own reasons for imposing punishment, (v) the necessity for the appellate authority to provide reasons for rejecting the appeal, and (vi) the justification for dismissing the review petition on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges were not maintainable as the petitioner acted in good faith to protect the Corporation's interest, and the Enquiry Officer's findings were deemed perverse. The court also ruled that the disciplinary authority's acceptance of the report without serving it to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice, and the appellate authority's non-speaking order and the dismissal of the review petition on the ground of delay were unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to pay the difference in salary to the petitioner and all consequential benefits within eight weeks.
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 17.2.2005 which was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent and communicated by the third respondent in letter dated 20.7.2006 and the order passed by the first respondent in review petition, which was communicated by the respondent by letter dated 10.11.2006 and direct the respondents to reimburse the reduced pay and refix the petitioners scale of pay and confer all monetary and consequential benefits including promotion on par with his juniors and disburse the arrears of salary.
2. The facts in nutshell for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(a) The petitioner joined the services of the then Pallavan Transport Corporation (Express Wing), a State owned Transport Corporation, as Assistant Manager on 20.9.1976 and was promoted as Deputy Manager on 20.9.1982. The petitioner was further promoted as Senior Deputy Manager on 14.4.1993 and he worked as General Manager in various stations. Petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2006, while working in the State Express Transport Corporation.
(b) When the petitioner was working as General Manager (Technical) in the erstwhile Annai Sathya Transport Corporation (ASTC), a charge memo was issued on 21.3.2003 as if the petitioner had violated the instructions of the Government while depositing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award amounts and the same is a misconduct under Rule 28(1) of the Conduct Rules of the Common Service Rules of the Corporation.
(c) On receipt of the charge memo, petitioner submitted his explanation by stating that at that time, the petitioner acted as Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal sub-Committee and three other persons were also charged with the same charges.
(d) The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found acceptable, hence an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 27.4.2004 with regard to the proposed punishment of reduction in basic pay at Rs.12,000/-from the present basic pay of Rs.15,750/- for three years. Petitioner submitted his reply on 22.6.2004. Copy of the enquiry report was also enclosed with the said notice. Third respondent without considering the reply imposed the punishment of reduction in basic pay by fixing the basic pay at Rs.12,000/- from the present basic pay of Rs.15,750/-for one year by order dated 7.3.2005.
(e) Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent on 28.3.2005. The said appeal was rejected by a non-speaking order and the same was communicated by the third respondent on 20.7.2006. Thereafter petitioner filed a review petition before the first respondent on 14.8.2006, which was also rejected on the ground that after expiry of six months review petition cannot be entertained. The said decision of the first respondent was communicated by the third respondent on 10.11.2006.
(f) The said orders of the respondents are challenged in this writ petition on the ground that four officials were involved in the same occurrence and the highest Officer being the Managing Director, against whom disciplinary action can be taken only by the Government, the charge framed by the Corporation is without jurisdiction; that the petitioner having not violated any of the Government instructions and as there is no requirement to get prior approval of the Finance Committee before depositing the award amount, the charge itself is baseless; that taking note of the urgency in satisfying the decree amount, when execution petition was filed, the amount was deposited and subsequently sought for ratification from the Finance Committee and the said procedure was followed only to avoid attachment of the Corporation properties in execution proceedings; that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is baseless and therefore the order passed on the basis of the said Enquiry Officers findings cannot
