The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and unbiased disciplinary proceedings, adherence to procedural rules, and the provision of a reasonable opportunity for defense in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.304/Aa/2015-1 dated 15.12.2021 and the impugned order in impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 304/Aa/2015 dated 15.12.2021 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential impugned order in Ku.Pa.No.02/2020 dated 31.01.2022 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.)

1. The prayer of the Writ Petition is as follows:

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.304/Aa/2015-1 dated 15.12.2021 and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.304/Aa/2015 dated 15.12.2021 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential impugned order in Ku.Pa.No. 02/2020 dated 31.01.2022 on the file of the second respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Fireman on 15.06.2009 in the first respondent Department. On the basis of the confession given by the accused persons, criminal cases in Crime No. 41 of 2015 and Crime No.42 of 2015 were filed as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 398 and 511 of IPC on the file of Uppuliyapuram Police Station. While he was under judicial custody another criminal case in Crime No.113 of 2014 was registered as against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 414 of IPC on the file of Pulivalam Police Station, Trichy District. Since the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.01.2015 and lodged in Central Prison, Trichy, he was suspended from service with effect from 31.01.2015. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 22.09.2020 containing two charges. The first charge is that the petitioner was one of the accused in Crime Nos.41 and 42 of 2015 and the second charge is as to the registration of Crime No.113 of 2014 against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation that he was falsely implicated in the said cases based on the confession of the accused persons. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and on the basis of which on 25.08.2021, the enquiry officer submitted the minutes of enquiry report and a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner on 02.09.2021 asking for his explanation. The enquiry officer solely on the ground that the judicial custody was accepted by the petitioner has held that the charges were proved and made an observation that the petitioner did not come to duty from 17.12.2014.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was acquitted in all three cases in S.C.No.91 of 2019 and S.C.No.121 of 2019 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy on 27.04.2021. Similarly, he was also acquitted in another case in C.C.No.167 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur on 04.10.2018. On the receipt of enquiry report, the petitioner submitted an elaborate explanation and thereafter, the third respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, issued the order dated 29.10.2021 of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It was also indicated by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner would be under probation and the said punishment order was delivered to him only on 05.11.2021 through registered post. In the said order, it was also intimated that the petitioner could file an appeal against the order of punishment within the stipulated period of two months before the Appellate Authority. But to the shock and surprise, the second respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, even before the completion of the statutory time limit for preferring an appeal ie., till 05.01.2022, has hastily issued the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 in which the punishment imposed on the petitioner was cancelled as per suo motu review powers granted to the second respondent under Rule 36(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and