2021 Supreme(Mad) 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
M. Baskar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner / Disciplinary Authority Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7056 of 2012
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Point of law: Though in disciplinary proceedings, the degree of proof is preponderance of probabilities only, in the present case all the three charges framed against the petitioner, after enquiry, have been found to be not proved by the report of the Enquiry Officer and when that being so, the disciplinary authority, if at all wants to differ with any of the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer, he must have stated the reason for taking such a different view from that of the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – Suspension of Services – Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records and quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent read with order passed by the 1st Respondent and direct the Respondents to restore the Petitioner to the post of Driver with all other consequential benefits and continuity of service. – Petitioner was initially appointed as conservancy worker at the respondent Corporation. – Thereafter, after rendering some years of service, he was posted as Lorry Driver. – When he was working as Lorry Driver, an accident took place, whereby the vehicle driven by the petitioner met with an accident resulting in death of a person, pursuant to which, the petitioner had been suspended on the very same day from service and simultaneously a criminal case was also filed against him. – After some months of suspension, the said suspension order was revoked and he has been reinstated into service and from that date he has been continuously working. – Disciplinary action was initiated for accident that took place and three charges were framed against petitioner, pursuant to which, enquiry was conducted and ultimately Enquiry Officer filed his report in which he had stated that, all charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. – After the Enquiry Officer's report, it seems that no action was taken by the first respondent / disciplinary authority and at one point of time, in the year 2009, when the petitioner had requested to regularize his suspension as duty period, that might have triggered the respondents to take up the file and accordingly, on the alleged reason that, some more materials have been obtained from the Transport Department based on which, the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly he passed an order, whereby he inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. – As against the said order passed by the first respondent being the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent, who also, after having considered the said appeal, disposed of the same, whereby the second respondent / appellate authority has modified the punishment into reduction in one rank and also the suspension period, which the petitioner had undergone between 29.09.1999 and 10.11.1999 was treated as service without pay. – Aggrieved over the order passed by the first respondent / disciplinary authority as well as the second respondent appellate authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. \

Finding of court: Degree of proof is preponderance of probabilities only, in the present case all the three charges framed against the petitioner, after enquiry, have been found to be not proved by the report of the Enquiry Officer and when that being so, the disciplinary authority, if at all wants to differ with any of the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer, he must have stated the reason for taking such a different view from that of the view expressed by the Enquiry Officer. – On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent, no such reason has been given by the disciplinary authority except to state that subsequently some materials were obtained from the Transport Department. – What materials were obtained by the disciplinary authority and what is the veracity of those documents, whether there are any materials in the documents subsequently received to come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved, have not been spelt out either in the order passed by the first respondent or prior to that, by way of a show cause notice to the delinquent. – No such show cause notice with regard to the additional materials allegedly obtained by the disciplinary authority has been given to the delinquent and therefore, the said reason given by the first respondent to come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Enquiry Officer, cannot be accepted in the eye of law. – These aspects have not been considered in proper perspective by the appellate authority also, who has simply modified the punishment and has not given any view as to how the disciplinary authority has taken a different view than the one expressed by the Enquiry Officer. – Since the respondents, both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not considered the issue in proper perspective, essentially in the manner known to law, for conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings, this Court feels that, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.

Result: Writ Petition Disposed Of