Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHIL KUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
N. Balamurugan - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P.No. 41231 of 2006 & W.P.No. 1 of 2006
Decided on : 02-04-2019
For the Petitioner:R. Nirmaladevi, K.P. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:K.S. Suresh, Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to adhere to the principles of natural justice and provide the charged officer with an opportunity to make a representation before imposing a penalty.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 - Rule 17(B), Rule 16(ii), Rule 23(1)(c)(ii)(iii), Rule 24 - The court discussed the application of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955, specifically Rule 17(B), Rule 16(ii), Rule 23(1)(c)(ii)(iii), and Rule 24, in the context of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and highlighted the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to provide an opportunity to the charged officer to make a representation before imposing a penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an employee in the Office of the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principles of natural justice were not followed throughout the disciplinary process, as the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalties without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to make a representation. The court held that the Impugned Order was liable to be set aside in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and allowed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the violation of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings, specifically related to the imposition of penalties without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to make a representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice and highlighted the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to provide an opportunity to the charged officer to make a representation before imposing a penalty.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Impugned Order was set aside. No order as to costs was made, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in G.O.(1D) No.448 Revenue Department, dated 27.06.2006, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O. (ID) No. 448 Revenue Department dated 27.06.2006.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was employed in the Office of the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai as a Superintendent. For purposes of training, in the year 1996, he was selected to undergo Revenue Inspector’s training and was allotted to the Villupuram District. The District Revenue Officer of Villupuram, in turn, posted him as Revenue Inspector, Tindivanam Firka and, thereafter, he was transferred to Kiliyanur Firka. When he was undergoing training there, he recommended the issuance of a residency certificate on the basis of a permanent nativity - cum community certificate issued earlier.
3. The Collector, Villupuram by Memorandum dated 14.02.1999 framed charges against the Petitioner under Rule 17(B) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955. The charges against the Petitioner were as follows:
(i) The Petitioner recommended the issuance of a false residence certificate to P.S.Manoharan in C.No.50/98 dated 17.03.1998.
(ii) The Petitioner has not enquired the Villagers and has not verified the Village Administrative Officer’s report properly.
(iii) The Petitioner suppressed the facts and was not disloyal to the government by recommending the false certificate to a Pondicherry State resident, which enabled him to obtain a M.D.S. seat in the Dental College.
4. The Petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of the above-mentioned charges on 02.09.1999. The Collector, Villupuram, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the above charges. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved. However, the Collector by proceedings dated 31.05.2001 held that the enquiry report was not acceptable to him because the Petitioner’s recommendation was not based on an enquiry with local residents and the Village Administrative Officer and that a wrong certificate was issued by the Tahsildar on the basis of the recommendation. Accordingly, the Collector, Villupuram, punished the Petitioner by censuring him. This order was communicated to the Petitioner after the lapse of one year and four months on 16.10.2002 through the Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement. The Petitioner appealed before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the next Appellate Authority, on 04.12.2002. The Appellate Authority, by Order dated 12.03.2004, found defects in the Collector’s Order and directed him to pass a fresh order by rectifying the defects within 60 days. In particular, it was stated in the Order dated 12.03.2004 that the Collector had not observed Rule 16(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1955 which provides that the punishing authority shall consult the lending authority before imposing any lesser penalty. It was also stated that the Petitioner had intentionally committed a serious offence by recommending a wrong certificate to a Pondicherry resident and therefore a wrong person was admitted in the course.
5. After about four months, the Collector, Villupuram communicated by Order dated 14.09.2004 that he is withholding the Petitioner’s salary without cumulative effect for three years. The Petitioner appealed before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration on 27.10.2004 and requested that the order be set aside. In specific terms, the Petitioner stated that the principles of natural justice and Rule 23 (1) (c) (ii) (iii) and Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 were violated. While the appeal was pending before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue
