Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
G. Prem Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Represented by its Managing Director, Chintadripet, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 18071 of 2009
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Writ Petition - Disciplinary Proceedings - MMWSS Board Employees Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978 - Section 6(5), 6(6), 6(25), 6(15), 6(20), 6(3), 6(21) - Regulation 7 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, was charged with unlawful activities and misconduct, leading to disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer found Charge No.1 proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which was confirmed on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority were perverse in nature, as they were based on the alleged admission of the petitioner in the regret letter given to revoke the suspension, while witnesses on record did not provide evidence against the petitioner. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to re-work the pay and allowances of the petitioner as if the order of with-holding of increments was not there.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the authority to impose the punishment, claim for parity with other co-delinquents, and the nature of findings by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relevant Regulation empowered the General Manager to impose the penalty of with-holding increments, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only the Board was the competent authority. The court also ruled that the petitioner could not claim parity with other co-delinquents as individual charges were framed based on the role played by each delinquent. Furthermore, the court found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were based on legally unacceptable evidence, and therefore, quashed the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to re-work the pay and allowances of the petitioner as if the order of with-holding of increments was not there. The petitioner was not entitled to actual arrears of pay till the date of service, but entitled to arrears on the retiral benefits and pension from the date of superannuation on such revised pay. The petitioner was not entitled to any interest on the arrears of the amounts to be paid to him. No costs were awarded in the present Writ Petition.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in No.CMWSSB/P&A/VC(A)/7740/2008, dated 12.07.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent made in Proc.No.MMWSSB/P&A/STF/RA2/50207/92, dated 12.01.1996 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as one on leave and quash the same.)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 12.01.1996 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 12.07.2008 passed by the first respondent, confirming the same on appeal.
2. Brief facts leading to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is that, aggrieved by non-consideration of several demands, the Association of Assistant Engineers indulged in certain forms of protest, which led to a surcharge atmosphere, which led to issuance of charge memo to the petitioner, who was also the office bearer of the Association at the relevant point of time. The petitioner was suspended from service and even though the said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition, subsequently, he withdrew the said Writ Petition, giving a letter of regret upon which the suspension was revoked. He was permitted to join duty and thereby, the charge memo containing three charges, was levelled as against the petitioner. The said three charges are extracted hereunder:
"Charge-1: That he be a responsible Assistant Engineer indulged in unlawful and illegal activities of holding meetings, affixing posters on the walls inside the Head Office premises and on parked vehicles of the Board, inside the Office complex, shouting slogans inside Office campus at No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Madrdas-2 demanding 3:1 ratio for promotion to the post of A.E.E. between A.E. and J.E. for which there are no provisions in the exiting Regulations. His above activities amounts to misconduct under Section 6(5) and 6(6) and 6(25) of the MMWSS Board Employees Service (Discipline and Appeal), Regulations, 1978.
Charge-2: That he participated in the relay fast agitation and 'fast unto death' agitation and pen down strike from 18.08.92 in gross violation of Section 6 of the MMWSS Board Employees Conduct Regulations, 1978 and which amounts to misconduct under Section 6(15) and 6(20) of MMWSSB Board Employees Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978.
Charge-3: On 27.08.92, he instigated the Assistant Engineers on illegal strike to storm into the Conference hall while the 140th Board meeting was in progress, and forcibly entered into the Conference hall at 12.30 P.M. along with other Assistant Engineers and stalled the proceedings for nearly an hour and on his way into the Conference hall physically assaulted Thiru P.Ramu, Office Assistant and Thiru S.Prabhakar, Field Worker who were there on duty informed him that the Board meeting was on. This above act is a criminal offence and highly objectionable and amounts to misconduct under Section 6(3) and 6(21) of the MMWSS Board Employees Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978."
3. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges even while admitting his presence in the scene of occurrence and thereupon, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, who found after conduct of oral enquiry that the Charge No.1 was proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 were partly proved.
4. The second show cause notice dated 22.11.1994 was issued to the petitioner calling for further explanation on the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 29.11.1994. However, after considering the further explanation and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the further explanation and accepting the Enquiry Officer's Report, imposed the puni
The court emphasized the need for findings in disciplinary proceedings to be based on legally acceptable evidence and held that the admission of fact does not necessarily amount to admission of charg....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for equal treatment of delinquents in disciplinary proceedings and the adverse impact of delay in concluding disciplinary actions, ....
The court emphasized that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the scope of judicial review was limited in this cas....
The disciplinary authority must record its own findings and provide an opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer. The delay in initia....
Authorities must provide reasoned decisions, avoid pre-judging issues, and adhere to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Whenever disciplinary authority disagrees with inquiry authority then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement.
In disciplinary proceedings, the authority imposing penalties must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allowing the employe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
