Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings, lack of evidence of acknowledgment of inquiry summons, and non-speaking order by the Appellate Authority warrant setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter back for a fresh inquiry.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the second respondent in his proceedings No.Se.Mu.A.No.26747/e2/2017 dated 21.08.2018 and the said order also confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms (1D) No.31 dated 23.07.2019 (received on 08.08.2019) quash the same and to issue consequential direction directing the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner.)

1. Based on the inquiry report holding the charges as proved against the petitioner under the charge memo dated 27.11.2012 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as “Rules”], the second respondent herein had imposed the punishment of “removal from service” through an order dated 21.08.2018. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in his appeal petition dated 27.08.2018, was also rejected by the first respondent through his order dated 23.07.2019. Challenging these orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Ms.Shabnam Banu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Though the petitioner herein had raised several grounds challenging the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the consequential punishments herein, Ms.Shabna Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner predominantly stressed upon the point of procedural irregularity in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. According to the learned counsel, neither was any inquiry conducted nor was any summons issued, calling upon the petitioner to appear for the domestic inquiry.

4. On the directions of this Courts, the learned Government Advocate produced the entire original files relating to the disciplinary proceedings. I had perused the files wherein it was found that the inquiry summons, which was claimed to have been sent to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer, does not carry an acknowledgement of the receipt of such summons by the petitioner. The official, who had brought the file had also counter checked the entire original files and fairly admitted that the petitioner''s acknowledgement of having received the inquiry summons, is not available in the file. If that be so, the claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the conduct of an inquiry, gains significance and thereby, an inference needs to be drawn in support of the petitioner''s claim.

5. This apart, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the Rules on 27.08.2018, against the award of punishment of removal from service. The Appellate Authority / first respondent herein, in his order dated 23.07.2019, had merely extracted the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and by stating that the grounds raised in the appeal were independently and carefully examined together, together with the TNPSC views, rejected the appeal, without assigning any further reasons. Such an order, is opposed to the procedure contemplated under the Rules.

6. Rule 23 of the Rules, deals with the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority while dealing with an appeal. As per the said Rule, the Appellate Authority is required to consider as to whether the facts on which the order imposing the penalty was passed, have been established; whether the facts established afford sufficient grounds for taking action; whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate; and only after following these procedures, the Appellate Authority is empowered to confirm or enhance or reduce or set aside the penalty or remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration.

7. None of the ingredients of Rule 23 have been followed by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order in the appeal. As stated above, the appeal has been rejected with a ''single line'', stating that the ground