IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M.P. Kaliappan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Transport-II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28749 of 2022 & Writ Petition No. 28750 of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Writ of Certiorari - Punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect - The Motor Vehicles Inspectors were found guilty of obtaining illegal gratification and allowing touts to perform official work, leading to the seizure of unclaimed and unaccounted cash. The charges were framed against the accused officers under Rule 20 of The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The tribunal found the charges proved and imposed the punishment. The High Court upheld the punishment, citing the presence of unaccounted cash, the involvement of outsiders, and the failure of the accused officers to provide a plausible explanation for the seized amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Motor Vehicles Inspectors, were found guilty of obtaining illegal gratification and allowing touts to perform official work, leading to the seizure of unclaimed and unaccounted cash. The charges were framed against them under Rule 20 of The Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The tribunal found the charges proved and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The petitioners challenged the punishment in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the punishment, citing the presence of unaccounted cash, the involvement of outsiders, and the failure of the accused officers to provide a plausible explanation for the seized amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether the punishment imposed on the petitioners was justified in light of the charges of obtaining illegal gratification and allowing touts to perform official work.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal trials do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. It also emphasized that the court should not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings and should be slow in reappreciating the entire evidence. The court also noted that a delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings does not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of prejudice to the delinquent officers.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and confirmed the impugned orders of punishment, upholding the tribunal's findings and the punishment imposed on the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in G.O.(2D) No.48, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 14.02.2022 against the petitioner and quashing the same.
W.P.No.28750 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in G.O.(2D) No.49, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 14.02.2022 against the petitioner and quashing the same.)
1. Challenging the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect imposed against the petitioners by the respondent by way of two separate government orders under G.O. (2D) No.48, Home (Transport-II) Department, dated 14.02.2022 and G.O. (2D) No.49, Home (Transport-II) Department, dated 14.02.2022, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions individually.
2.0. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions in brief are as under:-
2.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.28740 of 2022 viz., Kaliappan was selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II in the Transport Department and was appointed on 06.12.2000. He was promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I on 17.03.2007 and was further promoted as Regional Transport Officer (RTO) on 17.04.2017. He is at present working as RTO, Thirupathur in Thiruppathur District.
2.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.28750 o f2022 was selected by the TNPSC to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II in the Transport Department and was appointed on 04.04.2001. He was promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I on 01.06.2007. He is at present working as MV Inspector Grade-I in the office of the RTO, Villupuram.
2.3. A surprise check was conducted by the District Inspection Cell Inspector along with officials of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anticorruption in the office of the RTO, Vellore, on 29.10.2020 between 17.45 and 22.15 hours. Such joint surprise inspection, led to the seizure of an unclaimed and unaccounted cash of Rs.85,680/- from the office premises, touts and from the office staff. On the above allegations, two separate proceedings were initiated against P.Dharani (AO1), the then RTO, Vellore and the petitioner (AO2 and AO3), the then Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-I by the Commissioner, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in TDP Case No.1 of 2018 and T.D.P.No.2 of 2018. On 24.05.2018, charges were framed against all the three Accused Officers.
2.4. The charge as framed against the Accused Officers 1 to 3 by the tribunal are as under:-
Charge No.1 (TDP Case No.1 of 2018)
That, actuated by corrupt and dishonest motive and abuse of your (Accused Officer-1, Accused Officer-2 and Accused Officer-3) official position and authority, you (Accused Officer-1) while working as Regional Transport Officer, Vellore, you (Accused Officer-2) while working as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Office, Vellore, and you (Accused Officer-3) while working as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Office,Vellore, obtained illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in as much as during a joint surprise check conducted by Inspection Cell Inspector, District Inspection Cell Office, Collectorate, Vellore and Officials of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore Detachment, on 29.10.2010 between 17.45 hrs and 22.15 hrs, which resulted in the seizure of unclaimed and unaccounted cash totaling to a sum of Rs.85,680/- (Rupees Eight Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight only) which was seized from (i) office premises a sum of Rs.27,730/- (i.e., Rs.26,700/- from Rack near B2 seat (Accused Officer
The court emphasized that strict rules of evidence applicable in criminal trials do not apply to disciplinary proceedings and that the court should not act as an appellate authority in such proceedin....
The issuance of a charge memo after significant delay and without adherence to natural justice principles constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges in disciplinary proceedings must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and inordinate delay, lack of evidence, and non-speaking orders by....
The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings lies with the employer, and findings based on insufficient evidence are unsustainable.
Disciplinary proceedings are upheld if charges are partly proved, given procedural fairness and evidence supporting findings, irrespective of discrepancies critiqued by the petitioners.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.