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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
T. Rajakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Central Prisons, Coimbatore & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 18490 of 2004
Decided On : 01-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Kolandaivelu, Advocate. For the Respondents:R. Neethiprumal, Government Advocate.

The charges framed against an individual should be proportionate to the delinquencies committed, and the enquiry should be conducted in a fair and proper manner, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Duty of Prison Assistant - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1956 - Rule 17(a), Rule 17(b) - The court found that the charges framed against the Petitioner were minor in nature and should have been framed under Rule 17(a) instead of Rule 17(b). The punishment of compulsory retirement was deemed disproportionate to the delinquencies committed by the Petitioner. The court also noted that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, and the Enquiry Officer was related to the charges, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a Selection Grade Assistant in Coimbatore Central Prison, was charged with various lapses and subsequently imposed with compulsory retirement. The Petitioner challenged the order through a Writ Petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges framed against the Petitioner were minor and should have been under Rule 17(a) instead of Rule 17(b. The punishment of compulsory retirement was deemed disproportionate, and the enquiry was not conducted fairly. The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed the Respondents to treat the period of absence as duty.

Issues: 1. Whether the charges framed against the Petitioner were appropriate under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1956. 2. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the delinquencies committed by the Petitioner. 3. Whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner.

Ratio Decidendi: The charges framed against the Petitioner were minor in nature and should have been under Rule 17(a) instead of Rule 17(b. The punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the delinquencies committed by the Petitioner. The enquiry was not conducted fairly, and the Enquiry Officer was related to the charges, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition stands allowed, and the Respondents are directed to treat the period of absence of the Petitioner as duty in all aspects.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first Respondent in his proceedings No.12882/PO.4/2003 dated 26.05.2004 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first Respondent to treat the period of absence as duty in all aspects.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the first Respondent in his proceedings No.12882/PO.4/2003 dated 26.05.2004 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first Respondent to treat the period of absence as duty in all aspects.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell is as under:

The Petitioner was appointed as a Selection Grade Assistant in Coimbatore Central Prison and was dealing with R2 Section and the same was assigned with effect from 07.03.2003. It was clarified by the 1st Respondent on 05.05.2003 that R1 Assistant and R5 Junior Assistant should deal the affairs of high security prisoners and R2 Assistant, R3, R4 and R6 Junior Assistants should deal with the affairs of all prisoners except high security prisoners. The charges were framed by the 1st Respondent on the Petitioner and the charge memo dated 10.06.2003 under Rule 17(b) was issued to the Petitioner. The 4th charge was already dropped by the 1st Respondent with warning on 11.04.2003 in his proceedings No.7289/PO1/03, the 1st Respondent already issued the 1st charge under Rule 17(a) in proceedings No.PO4/9236/2003 dated 02.05.2003, the 2nd charge was already issued under Rule 17(a) by the 1st Respondent in proceedings No.PO4/9237/2003 dated 07.05.2003. The 1st Respondent in his proceedings No.12882/PO4/2003 cancelled the 17(a) charges issued on 02.05.2003 & 07.05.2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested the 1st Respondent on 08.08.2003 and 16.12.2003 to alter the charges from 17(b) to 17(a) and to furnish the connected documents, but the 1st Respondent in his proceedings dated 12.08.2003 and 17.12.2003, rejected the request to alter the charges and furnished the documents only to 4 charges. Thereafter, Mr.Ramani who was connected with charges 3, 4 & 8 was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 22.10.2003. Thereafter, the enquiry was fixed on 03.01.2004. The Petitioner appeared for enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and objected his enquiry, since he should be examined as one of the witnesses for the charges 3, 4 & 8 on behalf of the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 30.03.2004 and the Petitioner was served with show cause notice by enclosing the enquiry report on 11.04.2004. The Petitioner requested time for one month to submit the written explanation, since he returned from medical leave and to go through the records. But without considering the request, without extending the time as requested by the Petitioner and without receiving written explanation, the 1st Respondent passed an order of major punishment of compulsory retirement on 26.05.2004. Aggrieved by the order of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that charges under Rule 17(a) were changed to charges under Rule 17(b) and there is no rule to combine/convert/change the charges. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 11.02.2004, in which it is mentioned that even though it was decided to conduct enquiry on 29.01.2004, the Petitioner prevented the same by sending request to the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coimbatore Range to change the Enquiry Officer. The charge memo under Rule17(a) was issued to the Petitioner on 07.05.2003 and the charge memo under Rule17(b) was issued on 10.06.2003. The charges 3, 4, 5 & 7 are new charges.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry Officer appointed, is none other

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