Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. NISHA BANU, J.
J. Shantha Lingam & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner, The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Salem & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 12087 & 12088 of 2013
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Village Administrative Officers - Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - Charges of receiving illegal gratification - Charges not proved - Violation of Service Rules - Non-speaking orders - Inordinate delay - Charges not proved beyond reasonable doubt
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Village Administrative Officers, were charged with receiving illegal gratification in the name of commission from a charitable trust. The disciplinary proceedings were prolonged for more than 15 years without proper explanation for the delay. The charges were based on a preliminary enquiry report and the petitioners' statements, but none of the witnesses supported the prosecution's case. The orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities were non-speaking orders and did not consider the petitioners' representations. The court found that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and quashed the impugned orders, directing the settlement of retirement benefits to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioners were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It noted the inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings, the lack of evidence supporting the charges, and the non-speaking orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities. The court concluded that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside and directed the settlement of retirement benefits to the petitioners.
Issues: Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings, lack of evidence supporting the charges, non-speaking orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of evidence and inordinate delay in the proceedings. It emphasized the importance of considering the petitioners' representations and the need for speaking orders by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioners within twelve weeks.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 in connection with the impugned order passed in TDP Case No.DE No.5/2003 dated 30.08.2005, RC.No.SERV(1)/25309/07 dated 28.07.2010 and GO 2D.No.531 Revenue (Pani 7(2)) Dept. & GO 2DNo.530 Revenue (Pani 7(2)) Dept. respectively dated 06.11.2012 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioners within a reasonable time.
Common Order:
1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging (i)the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.08.2005, in which, the charges levelled against the petitioners are proved, (ii) the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.07.2010, in which, the petitioners were imposed with the punishment of removal from service and (iii) the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.11.2012, in which, the appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected. The petitioners have also prayed to direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits to them within a reasonable time.
2. i) The case of the petitioners is that they entered the service as Village Administrative Officers through selection conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed to service in 1984 in Kanchipuram District.
ii) While the petitioners were serving as Village Administrative Officer, Kudoor Village & Kinar Village respectively at Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, during the year 1992-95, an allegation has been made against them alleging that in the land transaction done in favour of V.P.Lingam of Samundeeswari Public Charitable Trust, they have received gratification in the name of commission to the tune of Rs.1,37,000/- from the Trust while discharging the official duties.
iii) Following a petition sent against the petitioners by one Ragunatha Reddy, Advocate representing the Trust, a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 8.8.1995 by the Tahsildhar and found that the allegations are false and the matter was closed. Inspite of the matter being closed earlier, a charge memo dated 17.06.2001 came to be issued to the petitioners under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules, containing three charges, alleging that the petitioners while serving as VAO, Kudoor Village & Kinar Village respectively, acted as brokers in the alleged transaction in favour of V.P.Lingam of Samudeeswari Public Charitable Trust, Madras and received an illegal gratification in the name of commission to the tune of Rs.1,37,000/- from the Trust by abusing their official duties and violated the Government Servants Conduct Rules and 2 other allied charges. The petitioners denied the charges by submitting explanation and the matter was closed.
iv) Again, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), Salem in DE No.5/23 dated 18.02.2003 and the charges were framed against the petitioners on similar lines. The matter was contested before the TDP and 9 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution. One document was marked on the side of the petitioners. The TDP, Salem, submitted a report relying upon the statements earlier made by the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry/vigilance enquiry and held that the charges against the petitioners are proved and also based on the report of the Sub-Collector, Madurantakam dated 08.08.2004 and submitted a report on 30.08.2005.
v) On furnishing a copy of the report, the petitioners submitted their further representation for the enquiry officer''s report on 06.05.2007. After a lapse of 3 years, the 2nd respondent held that the charges against the petitioners have been proved by accepting the report of TDP, Salem and for the proven charges, imposed a punishment of removal from service in his proceedings dated 28.07.2010. Against which, the petitioners preferred an a
AI
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 main legal point established is the requirement for timely framing of charges, non-discriminatory action against co-delinquents, and the need for a joint enquiry for co-delinquents from different....
The burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings lies with the employer, and findings based on insufficient evidence are unsustainable.
The court affirmed the necessity of stringent penalties for corruption within public service, emphasizing that admissions of guilt during inquiries mitigate claims of unjust treatment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be based on some evidence, comply with natural justice, and ensure that the penalty is not disproportionate to t....
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.
Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose penalties based on misconduct, and judicial review is limited to the fairness and legality of the inquiry process, not the substantive merits of....
Disciplinary actions must be supported by substantial evidence, especially when a criminal acquittal exists for the same charges.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
