The importance of proving charges in departmental proceedings and the principle that suspicion is not a substitute for proof.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.E4/35683/2002 (ii) dated 19.12.2003 and order of the 1st respondent in Ref.No.E4/35683/2002 dated 02.02.2005 and confirmed in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.P3/15724/2014 dated 19.10.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to pay all the benefits to the petitioner withheld by them.)

1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent dated 19.12.2003; 1st respondent dated 02.02.2005; confirmed by the 1st respondent in and by proceedings dated 19.10.2015 and to consequently direct the respondents to pay all benefits withheld by them to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as driver in the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd on 16.06.1986. The petitioner was charged for a theft that occurred at Cherambady Tea Factory. Enquiry was initiated on 21.02.2003 through Police officers and enquiry officer appointed by the administration. The petitioner gave a detailed explanation stating that he was in no way connected to the alleged theft that took place. The enquiry officer held the charges were not proved. However, the 2nd respondent imposed a punishment reducing the petitioner to bottom scale of pay for 3 years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and he also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8029 of 2004 and this Court dismissed the Writ Petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Subsequently, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the 2nd respondent. The other co-delinquent had filed W.P.No.23269 of 2006 and this Court allowed the Writ Petition quashing the proceedings against the said Kumaresan, the co-delinquent connected with the same offence. It is the case of the petitioner that though it was a case of no material evidence produced by the prosecution and moreover, when the co-delinquent had succeeded in getting the charges quashed against him, the petitioner was also entitled to the same relief.

3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the theft occurred because of the negligence of the petitioner and Corporation suffered a loss of approximately Rs.4,775/-.It is the specific stand of the respondents that all records were carefully examined and punishment was awarded and there was nothing illegal or irregular on the action initiated by the respondents and they sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. This Court has also perused the records filed in form of a typedset of papers and also carefully examined the decisions relied on by the counsel.

6. In W.P.No.23269 of 2006 in and by an order dated 24.07.2014, the other co-delinquent K.Kumaresan has successfully challenged the proceedings initiated against him in respect of the very same offence. The punishment awarded to him was reducing him to bottom level scale for five years with cumulative effect. This Court set aside the impugned proceedings in that case and also directed the respondents to pay the entire arrears that the petitioner therein was entitled, as per Service Rules, including benefit of promotion, notional or otherwise, as the case may be.

7. In Om Pal Singh Vs. Disciplinary Authority and Ors, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 103, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealing with entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in cases of reinstatement, held that when reinstatement being a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither backwages nor continuity benefit