SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
R. Ramanathan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 13681 of 2011
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Gowthaman, Advocate. For the Respondents: G. Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader.

Violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of disciplinary action.

Headnote:

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Village Administrative Officer - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (DPT Rules 1955) - Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973 - The court quashed the orders passed by the second respondent and the first respondent and partly allowed the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Village Administrative Officer, was suspended for delinquency and corrupt practices just two days prior to his superannuation. He was retired during the suspension period and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The charges included preparing false birth and death reports and demanding bribes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's removal from service was in violation of the principles of natural justice as the second respondent did not issue a second Show Cause Notice before imposing the punishment. The court also noted that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance during the suspension period and that the charges against him were serious in nature.

Issues: The issues included the fairness of the departmental enquiry, the lack of subsistence allowance, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the imposition of the punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court to establish that the non-issuance of the second Show Cause Notice before passing the order of removal of service was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and relevant rules and regulations.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders passed by the second respondent and the first respondent and partly allowed the writ petition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.222 Revenue (Ser7(2)) Department dated 16.04.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 31.03.2009 in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer with all monetary benefits.)

The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D).No.222 Revenue (Ser7(2)) Department dated 16.04.2010 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 31.03.2009 in Procgs.Ser.V(2) 72205/07 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer with all monetary benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 28.09.2005, while he was working as Village Administrative Officer at Moongilthuraipattu village, he was suspended for committing delinquency and for corrupt practices and on 30.09.2005, the petitioner has retired from his service. In regard to the delinquency and corruption committed by the petitioner, on 26.06.2006, a departmental enquiry was initiated by the third respondent. Thereafter, on 31.07.2006, a Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner. The three charges which were framed against him are as follows:

(i) He has not got jurisdiction over the reporting of the birth which took place outside his jurisdiction, but, he entertained the information furnished by one Thiru.Narasimhan S/o. Krishnamoorthy, Moongilthuraipattu pertaining to the birth on 12.07.2004 of his grand daughter Kiruthika (daughter of his son Shanmugam and daughter in law Saraswathy) at JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry and prepared a false Birth Report by falsely mentioned Moongilthuraipattu as a birth place of Kiruthika under column G(2) of the Form-I, of Birth Report, though the said Narasimhan had specifically mentioned JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry to him as the birth place of Kiruthika and submitted the said false Birth Report to Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 20.07.2004.

(ii) Being a Public Servant, he has not got jurisdiction over the reporting of death which took place outside his jurisdiction, but, he entertained the information furnished by one Srinivasan S/o. Late Kannan, Moongilthuraipattu pertaining to the death on 19.01.2005 of his father Kannan at the Government Hospital, Pondicherry and prepared a false Death Report by falsely mentioning Moongilthuraipattu as the place of death of Kannan under column (5) (2) of the Form No.2 of the Death Report, though the said Srinivasan had specifically mentioned Government General Hospital, Pondicherry to him as the place of death of Kannan and submitted the said false Death Report to the Taluk Office, Sankarapuram on 24.01.2005.

(iii) Being a Public Servant, he demanded bribe to 9 different persons on 12.04.2004 and obtained the same on 13.04.2004 at his room in Moongilthuraipattu for arranging the Patta. The amount and name of the persons from whom he received bribe are as follows:

Sl. No.


Name of the persons from whom the petitioner received bribe

Amount received by the petitioner as bribe

1

Mr.Munusamy

Rs.16,000/-

2

Mr.Subramani

Rs.10,000/-

3

Mr.Chinnasamy

Rs.14,500/-

4

Mrs.Alamelu

Rs.15,000/-

5

Mr.Thirumalai

Rs.5,000/-

6

Mr.Krishnan

Rs.10,000/-

7

Mr.Raji

Rs.2,000/-

8

Mr.Velayutham

Rs.2,000/-

9

Mr.Veerasamy

Rs.2,000/-

2.1. The departmental enquiry conducted by the third respondent was concluded on 11.04.2007. During the enquiry, on the side of the Department, 29 witnesses were examined and 53 documents were submitted and on the side of the petitioner, neither a witness was examined nor a document was submitted.

2.2. On 25.04.2007, the third respondent has submitted the Enquiry Report before the secon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top