Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
S.Manivannan – Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.28157 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Decided On : 07-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.Saseetharan
For the Respondents: Mr. T.M.Pappiah Special Government Pleader
The charges against a government employee must have factual reasons and legal basis, and the disciplinary authority must provide adequate reasons for imposing penalties affecting the employee's career and benefits.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Action - Government Employee - G.O.(2D).No.587 Revenue [Personnel 4(2)] Department - Charges, Enquiry, and Penalty
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was charged with misconduct related to land records and was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry resulting in the imposition of a penalty affecting his pensionary benefits. The petitioner challenged the order before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner lacked factual reasons or legal basis, were vague, and did not disclose the extent of the petitioner's involvement. It also noted that the disciplinary authority failed to provide proper reasons for imposing the penalty, which would have a lasting adverse impact on the petitioner's career.
Issues: Validity of charges, fairness of the disciplinary enquiry, adequacy of reasons for imposing the penalty, impact on the petitioner's career and pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: Charges must have factual reasons and legal basis, disciplinary enquiries must afford proper opportunity to the accused, and the disciplinary authority must provide adequate reasons for imposing penalties affecting the accused's career and benefits.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, restored the petitioner's pay, and directed the authorities to implement the order within two months.
1. Heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the following relief,
“to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in relation to G.O.(2D).No.587 Revenue [Personnel 4(2)] Department dated 17.07.2014 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings.”
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner was initially appointed as Land Surveyor on 21.07.1983. In the year 1989, his service was regularized. As such, on 29.09.2006, he was promoted as Sub Inspector of Survey. While working as Sub-Inspector of Survey, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, he was issued a charge memo dated 27.11.2011, alleging certain acts of misconduct on his part.
4. According to the charge, he was involved in the process of changing name in the patta and other relevant records as well as computerized records in favour of one Mr.Kamalakannan, in respect of certain lands. He was also charged that he failed to bring to the notice of the Tahsildar about the fact that the Land Settlement Officer and Assistant Land Settlement Officer have no authority to grant patta in respect of Rytwary lands.
5. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the above charges. After hearing the petitioner, a similar set of charges has also been issued to various other officials. However, notwithstanding the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner on 26.12.2011, an enquiry was conducted on the alleged charges. In the enquiry, no witnesses were examined and statement has been obtained from the petitioner alone in the enquiry. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding charges against the petitioner proved only on the basis of the statement obtained from the petitioner and also on the basis of certain Government Orders issued on the subject matter of the charges.
6. The petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation to the Enquiry Officer's report, pointing out certain infirmities in conducting the enquiry. However, the first respondent has passed the impugned order vide G.O.(2D) No.587, Revenue [Personnel 4(2)] Department dated 17.07.2014, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Since the said order was passed by the first respondent, there is no appeal against the order and since the punishment imposed will affect his pensionary benefits, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Upon notice, the learned Special Government Pleader entered appearance and filed a detailed counter and reiterated the averments made therein.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charges by itself are vague and cannot be the basis of any disciplinary action against the petitioner. He would submit that as a low level officer, there is no scope for his involvement in the process of changing name in the patta or relevant revenue records. It was only the duty of the Tahsildar and he was ultimately responsible for the change of patta or the change in any relevant revenue records.
9. The imputation of the charges also does not specifically deal with as to what kind of involvement can be attributable to the petitioner. In which event, the same cannot be a valid basis for the issuance of the charge. Moreover, he would submit that there was no proper enquiry as contemplated in the relevant rules. Even though it was a minor penalty proceedings, no proper opportunity has been offered to the petitioner when the charge has been stoutly denied by him. He would further submit that the second charge being failed to bring to the notice of the Tahsildar, with regard to the change of name in the patta and grant of patta in respect of Rytwary lands, cannot be a valid charge as against the petitioner, since the Tahsildar is ultimately respo
