The evidence collected by the Investigation Officer cannot be treated as evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, and the charges against the employee must be proved based on materials brought on record during the enquiry.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: W.P.(MD)No.6908 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of dismissal passed by the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings in Se.Mu.A.No.Ad6/87179/2012 dated 29.05.2013 confirmed by the 1st Respondent in their proceedings in Chae.Mu.Aanai No.AD2/50102/2013 dated 06.10.2017 and quash both the orders and consequently directing the Respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service and thereafter allow the petitioner herein to retire from service on 31.05.2013 with all attendant benefits.

W.P.(MD)No.16168 of 2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order dated 04/01/2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, in Gratuity Appeal Case.No.100 of 2017 and to quash the same as illegal.)

Common Order:

1. The punishment of dismissal from service, together with treating the suspension period as a punishment and recovery of the alleged loss to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation against one Mr.P.Natarajan, is under challenge in WP(MD)No.6908 of 2018. In consequence to the order of punishment, the orders, passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, quantifying the gratuity amount and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, have been challenged by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation in WP(MD)No. 16168 of 2018. Since both the writ petitions arise out of a common transaction, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as “Corporation” and “Employee”.

2. Through a charge memo dated 04.02.2013, the employee is alleged to have abetted of smuggling 405 bags of PDS rice. The statement of allegations in the charges is that the lorry smuggling the PDS rice, was intercepted by the CID Police on 03.11.2012 and a criminal case in Crime No.395 of 2012 was registered against the employee, as well as others.

3. In connection with the charges, an enquiry was conducted and during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had held all the charges levelled against the employee as “not proved”. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to defer from the Enquiry Officer's report and accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 10.05.2013, calling for explanation. On the employee's further explanation dated 15.05.2013, the second respondent herein had passed the impugned order of dismissal, dated 29.05.2013. The appeal, against the dismissal order, to the first respondent herein was also rejected on 06.10.2017.

4. When the employee herein had filed an application under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, seeking for interest on the belated payment of gratuity, the authority had passed an order on 24.01.2017 directing the Corporation to pay interest for a sum of Rs.1,29,477/-, on the belated payment of gratuity for a sum of Rs.4,43,920/-, at the rate of 10% per annum. The appellate authority, in his order dated 04.01.2018, while confirming the order of the Controlling Authority, has fixed the payment of gratuity of Rs.6,47,563/- as the total gratuity and a sum of Rs.2,03,643/- as the sum payable under the total amount of gratuity, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The Corporation has challenged these two orders of the authorities passed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. Insofar as the punishment imposed on the employee is concerned, the Enquiry Officer had held the charges against the employee as not proved, consequent to which, the Disciplinary Authority had proposed to defer with the findings and had issued a show cause notice dated 10.05.2013 in this regard. The employee had also submitted his explanation.

6. In the show cause notice dated 10.05.2013, the only ground on which the Disciplinary Authority proposed to defer from the views of the Enquiry Officer was that, the Disciplinary Authority had placed