2023 Supreme(Mad) 1700

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUBRAMANIAN, L. VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ.
The Governing Council of the Rukmani, Shanmugam Polytechnic College, Represented by its Chairman, Madurai & Another – Appellants
Versus
K.K. Chockalinkam, Madurai & Another – Respondents
W.A (MD) No. 54 of 2023 & C.M.P (MD) No. 158 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2023

The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority. The court emphasized that judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.

Headnote:

Writ Appeal - Disciplinary Proceedings - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rules 20 and 22(2) - The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Appellants to refund the amount deducted and to regularize the suspension period from 04.05.2006 to 20.02.2010 and to consider the same as duty period and subsequently directed to disburse the full salary and terminal benefits to the first respondent. The court found that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the statement given by the de-facto complainant and that the Enquiry Officer did not heed to the request of the first respondent to examine the Bank Account of the Management and the second witness, and the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the Hon''ble Single Judge acted as an Appellate Authority against the disciplinary proceedings of the Rukmani Shanmugam Polytechnic College and that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority. The court further held that the Hon''ble Single Judge in a hurry proceeded to set aside the punishment imposed claiming that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the impugned order was not a reasoned order but a cryptic one. The court emphasized that judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The court also highlighted that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the High Court exercising power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority. The court set aside the impugned order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge and upheld the legality of the impugned order passed by the first Appellant on 12.12.2011.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent was serving as the Personal Assistant to the Principal of the second Appellant College when a charge memo was issued to the first respondent, leading to four rounds of writ petitions. The first respondent was permitted to retire from service on superannuation on 28.02.2010, without prejudice to the disciplinary action. The first Appellant passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2011, imposing punishment stating that the period of suspension from 05.05.2006 to 28.02.2010 shall not be counted as qualifying service and to recover the sum of Rs.1,750/- from the terminal benefits, which was wrongly claimed by the first respondent in the name of Karuppasamy @ Vasanthakumar as cited in Charge No.1 of the charge memo dated 30.04.2008. Challenging this impugned order, W.P(MD)No.2137 of 2013 was filed, in which the Hon''ble Single Judge proceeded to set aside the said impugned order on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason and the same is a cryptic order. The other two reasons cited by the Hon''ble Single Judge is that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the statement given by the de-facto complainant, namely, Karuppasamy and that the Enquiry Officer did not heed to the request of the first respondent to examine the Bank Account of the Management and the second witness, namely, Mr.Poneeswaran and the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the statement given by the de-facto complainant and that the Enquiry Officer did not heed to the request of the first respondent to examine the Bank Account of the Management and the second witness, and the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the Hon''ble Single Judge acted as an Appellate Authority against the disciplinary proceedings of the Rukmani Shanmugam Polytechnic College and that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority. The court further held that the Hon''ble Single Judge in a hurry proceeded to set aside the punishment imposed claiming that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the impugned order was not a reasoned order but a cryptic one. The court emphasized that judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The court also highlighted that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the High Court exercising power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority.

Issues: The issues revolved around the violation of principles of natural justice, the authority of the Constitutional Court under Article 226, and the distinction between the power of judicial review and the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Hon''ble Single Judge acted as an Appellate Authority against the disciplinary proceedings of the Rukmani Shanmugam Polytechnic College and that the power of judicial review discharged by the High Court under Article 226 is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority. The court emphasized that judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The court also highlighted that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the High Court exercising power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge and upheld the legality of the impugned order passed by the first Appellant on 12.12.2011.