Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3392
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep.by its Managing Director, Nandanam
Versus
N. Gopal & Another
W.A.No.493 OF 2008
Decided On : 11-08-2010
For the Appellant :P. Wilson Additional Advocate General Asst. by
K. Kasikumar for K. Chelladurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - K. Doraisamy, Senior Counsel for M/s. Muthumani Doraisamy, R2 - G. Desingh, Spl.Govt. Pleader. Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on justifiable materials, and unreasonable delay in initiating departmental proceedings can cause substantial prejudice to the accused.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Housing Board - Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Housing Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations, 1963, Section 20 - The judgment discusses the disciplinary proceedings against a Divisional Accountant of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for alleged irregularities in cost finalization. The court found that the officer acted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board and was not responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Board. The court also highlighted the unreasonable delay in initiating departmental proceedings, which caused substantial prejudice to the officer. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to settle the retirement benefits due to the first respondent within six weeks from the judgment date.
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent, a Divisional Accountant at the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was suspended and faced disciplinary action for alleged irregularities in cost finalization. Despite submitting explanations and two enquiries absolving him from the charges, the Managing Director decided to impose punishment of withholding one third pension and recovery of a sum of Rs.4,32,380.25 from the first respondent. The first respondent challenged the proceedings in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent acted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board and was not responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Board. The court also noted the unreasonable delay in initiating departmental proceedings, which caused substantial prejudice to the first respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged irregularities in cost finalization and the imposition of disciplinary action against the first respondent. The court also considered the delay in initiating departmental proceedings as a crucial issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the first respondent acted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board and was not responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Board. The court also emphasized the unreasonable delay in initiating departmental proceedings, which led to the dismissal of the writ appeal.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to settle the retirement benefits due to the first respondent within six weeks from the judgment date.
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2 January, 2008 in W.P.No.11308 of 2006 whereby and whereunder, the order imposing punishment on the first respondent was quashed.
THE FACTS IN OUTLINE
2. The first respondent joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the year 1964. He was originally appointed as Junior Assistant at Coimbatore. Subsequently, he was promoted as Divisional Accountant in the year 1973.
3. While the matters stood thus, on 22 June, 1998, one week before his superannuation, he was suspended from service on the ground of alleged commission of irregularity in the matter of cost finalization. The appellant alleged that the first respondent processed the cost finalisation proposal relating to Tatabad Scheme in the year, 1987 and got it approved at the level of Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit instead of obtaining the approval of the Board and thereby committed grave irregularities in cost finalisation and thus violated Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations, 1963. It was also alleged that on account of his act of finalisation of cost at a lesser rate, the appellant sustained loss of Rs.17,29,521/-.
4. The first respondent submitted his explanation to the charges. According to the first respondent, as per the circular of the appellant dated 1 December, 1986 cost finalisation of the completed Scheme up to March, 1982 has to be done at the Divisional level and it was only in respect of the scheme completed after 1 April, 1982, it has to be sent to the Board for approval. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in finalising the cost, as the acquisition in question and the cost finalisation were prior to 1 April, 1982. With respect to the second charge regarding the Act of causing loss to the appellant to the tune of Rs.17,29,521/-, the first respondent submitted that there was no enhancement in the award amount and the extra demand was only on account of enhancing the solatium as well as statutory interest.
5. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, the appellant appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 17 September, 1999 wherein it was reported that the charges were not proved. Though the appellant accepted the said report, the Government was not agreeable and accordingly, a fresh enquiry was initiated. The second enquiry also resulted in giving a negative report, absolving the first respondent from charges.
6. The Managing Director of the Housing Board disagreed with the findings given by the second enquiry officer. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent to show cause as to why he should not be punished for his misconduct. The first respondent submitted his explanation point to point as to why he was not responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the appellant. However, the Managing Director was not prepared to accept the said explanation. Accordingly, it was decided to impose punishment of withholding one third pension besides recovery of a sum of Rs.8,64,760.50 from the first respondent. The report of the Board was submitted to the Government for approval. The Government, after due consideration, accorded approval of the Boards resolution dated 11 April, 2003 with a modification in the punishment that recovery should be only a sum of Rs.4,32,380.25. The punishment of withholding one third pension was approved.
7. The appellant, on receipt of the order passed by the Government dated 29 September, 2003 issued the impugned proceedings dated 7 October, 2003 whereby and whereunder the punishment of with-holding one third pension for a period of one year besides recovery of a sum of Rs.4,32,380.25 was imposed on the first respondent. The first respondent challenged the proceedings dated 7 October, 2003 in W.P.No.11308 of 2006.
8. Before the learned Single Judge, the first respondent conten
