ORDER :

PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in G.D.C.No.E1/12160/2011 of the second respondent dated 28.07.2011 confirmed by the orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.(Pa) No.298, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Maa.Na3) Department dated 07.06.2013 and quash the orders passed therein and consequently, accord all consequential reliefs and benefits.

The Writ Petition is directed against an order of punishment imposed on the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 24.05.2011 for dereliction of duty. The charges are that he failed to detect unauthorized construction of a residential and commercial building at Plot No.3, Visalakshi Nagar Second Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai - 32, and also failed to demolish the unauthorized constructions which paved way for Court case vide W.P.No.8408 of 2010. Second charge was that he failed to issue notice in time and initiate prosecution against the unauthorized construction. Third charge was that he had violated Rule 20 of Madras Corporation Servants Conduct Bye Laws, 1983.

3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and found that the charges were proved and on that basis, second respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of increments for three years with cumulative effect. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. At the outset, the first charge was that the petitioner has failed to detect the unauthorized construction and also failed to demolish the unauthorized construction, which paved way for Court case vide W.P.No.8408 of 2010. But, admittedly, Notice No.D, dated 17.08.2009 was issued by the Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office - IX, Chennai - 15, to stop the construction work and the owner was called upon to produce a copy of the approved plan within three days. From the Notice dated 17.08.2009, it is very clear that the site inspection was made on 17.08.2009 and Notice was also issued under Section 56 and 57 r/w Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on the same day.

6. Curiously, Notice was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Zonal Office - IX to the owner of the site. It bears the signatures of the Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer working under the Executive Engineer. Therefore, the charges by itself are without any basis as the inspection was done, unauthorized construction was detected and notice was issued.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that action was initiated against all the three officials and the punishment was imposed. Be that as it may, but, in view of Notice dated 17.08.2009, charge one and two are baseless. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8408 of 2010, the charge memo issued as a hoodwink.

8. Going further, the conduct of the enquiry proceedings would show, it is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. From the minutes of the enquiry report, I find that the enquiry was conducted like an interrogative session. There is no Presenting Officer to present the case of the prosecution and to produce evidence for proving the charge. On the other hand, it appears that questions were put to the delinquents by the enquiry officer himself and the answers were recorded. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report. The enquiry report describes the charge in the first column, the reply furnished by the officials in the second column and the findings in the third column. It proceeded on the basis of what was perceived by the Enquiry Officer and not on the basis of the evidence recorded during enquiry. The Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding