Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 1759
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Ponnuthai
Versus
The Director, Social Welfare Department & Others
W.P (MD) No. 2959 of 2011 & M.P (MD) No. 2 of 2011
Decided on : 02-07-2014
For the Petitioner:K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Velmurugan, Govt. Advocate.
In a departmental enquiry, it is the department's duty to prove the charges against the delinquent, and the basic principles of natural justice must be upheld.
Headnote:
Certiorarified Mandamus - Suspension, Retirement Benefits - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Section 17(a) - Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai - J.Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare - Ponnuthai Vs. The Director, Social Welfare Department
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Children Welfare Organizer, was served with a charge memo for allegedly producing a forged S.S.L.C. certificate. She was suspended two days before her superannuation without an enquiry and without receiving subsistence allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension lacked proper material evidence and was liable to be set aside. It referred to previous judgments to support the petitioner's case and directed the revocation of suspension and retirement from service with all terminal benefits and arrears to be paid within four weeks.
Issues: Suspension without enquiry, non-payment of subsistence allowance, lack of proper material evidence in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments to establish that in a departmental enquiry, it is the department's duty to prove the charges against the delinquent and that the basic principles of natural justice must be upheld.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, the suspension is revoked, and the petitioner is permitted to retire from service with all terminal benefits and arrears to be paid within four weeks.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent by his proceedings in Proc.No.42051/Ad.3.2/2003, dated 29.10.2003 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider that the petitioner had deemed to have retired from 31.10.2003 and pay all future benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she joined as Children Welfare Organizer (Bala Sevika) from 03.12.1970 under the first respondent. She completed 10th standard in the year 1993 as a private candidate. Thereafter, she was promoted as Rural Welfare Officer. While so, on 10.10.2003, she was served with a charge memo under Section 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, stating that on verification of her certificate in S.S.L.C., the fourth respondent found that it was reported to be forged one. The said allegation is based on the communication of the fourth respondent dated 22.07.2003. According to the petitioner, no witnesses were examined nor their statements were recorded so as to substantiate the said allegation. She filed a detailed objection denying and refuting all the allegations levelled against her and produced the relevant materials. Despite the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.10.2003, i.e. two days prior to her superannuation, by way of the impugned order. Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted and no subsistence allowance was paid, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and abuse of powers, besides, non-application of mind.
3. No counter affidavit is forthcoming from the respondents denying the allegations of the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suspended two days before her superannuation and thereafter, she was not paid subsistence allowance and that too, when no enquiry was conducted. He further contended that despite the materials placed before the authority concerned, they did not evoke any positive response as there is non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is seen that the petitioner was served with a charge memo, only based on the communication of the fourth respondent dated 22.07.2003, whereby, it is reported that the S.S.L.C., certificate produced by the petitioner, is a forged one. After issuance of the charge memo, the enquiry was conducted, however, without examining any witnesses relating to the allegations levelled as against the petitioner. The specific plea of the petitioner is that just two days prior to her superannuation, she was placed under suspension and according to her, it is an arbitrary exercise on the part of the first respondent.
7. This Court, in the judgment in Neelavathy v. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai, and others, [W.P(MD)No.15932 of 2012, decided on 09.06.2014], has passed the following order:
"7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in a departmental enquiry, it is for the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent. The charge against the petitioner is that she produced bogus SSLC certificate to claim promotion. It is the bounden duty of the respondents to verify the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time when she was given promotion. But, the respondents have failed to do so. The petitioner produced such certificate in the year 1995 and she was given promotion in the year 1998 and there is no reason for the respondents to wait for eight years and to issue charge memo, subsequent suspension order, order of dismissal and lastly the order of removal from service.
8. This Court, in J.Meerabai Vs. The Director of Social Welfare, [W.P.[MD].No.7106 of 2008], considered the similar issue and set aside the order of dism
