Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2544
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
S. Jeyaraj
Versus
The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Home (Police – V) Dept., Chennai & Others
W.P.NO. 1130 OF 2007 (O.A.NO.6725 OF 2001)
Decided on : 20-06-2012
For the Petitioner:R.S. Anandan for Anand & Surya, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A. Shri Jayanthi, Advocate, S. Navaneethan, A.G.P.
The judgment emphasizes that the non-supply of documents must cause prejudice to warrant a violation of natural justice. It also establishes that the punishment must not be disproportionate to the proved misconduct.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Compulsory Retirement - T.N.C.S. (D & A) Rules - 17(b) - 2005(6) SCC 321 - Canara Bank vs. VK. Awasthy - Article 311(2) - Article 20(2) - Trilok Nath vs. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 - Misappropriation - Disproportionate Punishment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, sought to quash the punishment of compulsory retirement. The charges against the petitioner included misappropriation and failure to account for a significant amount. The petitioner alleged bias and violation of natural justice due to the non-supply of crucial documents and lack of opportunity to defend effectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's rights were not violated, and the punishment was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, bias attitude of disciplinary authority, denial of reasonable opportunity, misappropriation, disproportionate punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-supply of documents did not cause prejudice, and the punishment was not disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The court also found that the petitioner's contentions lacked merit and rejected the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondent.
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment of compulsory retirement has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing the order of punishment with all consequential benefits.
2 The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant in pursuance to this selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1973. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1985. While working as Assistant at District Police Office, Madurai district, the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S. (D & A) Rules vide P.R.No.37/99 dated 18.2.1999 by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. The charges against the petitioner were read as under:
(1) Reprehensible conduct in having misappropriated a sum of Rs.2767/- (a sum of Rs.2,207/-) from MCB and Rs.506/- from SCB) while he was serving as Cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai and the same amount was recovered from his salary for 2,3/97 and credited to Government in city police office E.chalan No.257/97-98, dated 24.07.1997.
(2) Reprehensible conduct in not having accounted for a huge amount of Rs.43,343/-properly in the UDP resulting to recover the same amount from the persons responsible for that while he was serving as a cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai.
3 The petitioner on receipt of charge memo, requested for supply of certain documents which read as under:
(i) Security Register dated 11-2-94
(ii) P.E.W. Madurai Zonal PR.2/96 file against previous cashier Tr. Deivendran
(iii) PEW SCB Cash Book dated 31-3-97
(iv) PEW Main Cash Book dated 31-3-97 and
(v) M.T.C. 70 for the month of 10/95.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that these documents were not supplied to the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed without awaiting for explanation from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this was on account of malafide intention of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai district, Madurai. However, it may be noticed here that the petitioner has not impleaded the Superintendent of Police by name against whom allegation of malafide has been levelled.
5. It is the submitted by the petitioner that in response to the request of the petitioner for supply of the documents, he was informed that it was not possible for the department to supply those documents on account of his non availability.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to his explanation, the petitioner was informed that the documents requested by him were not to be taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was thereafter, served with enquiry report dated 19.5.1995 and was given an opportunity to file objection to the enquiry report within 10 days of the receipt of the memo.
7. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges proved against him. The competent authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement.
8. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of punishment. The appellate authority served a show cause notice to the petitioner vide C.No.A6/2457/37/99 dt.29.7.1999 to show cause as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement be not enhanced to that of dismissal from service.
9. On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the show cause notice for enhancement of punishment was cancelled. The appellate authority while withdrawing the show cause notice, also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
10. It is also submitted that the petitioner's predecessor did not hand over the cash properly resulting in a short fall of Rs.87,613/-(Rupees eighty seven thousand six hundred and thirteen only).
11. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 without relying upon any evidence. Therefore, findings of the enquiry officer are perverse.
12. The petitioner also submits that findings on charge No.2 a
