Failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules in imposing a major penalty renders the order liable to be interfered by the court.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3228/A7/2018, dated 19.02.2021, wherein the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of two years increment cut with cumulative effect.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in the year 2004. In the year 2013, he was transferred and posted in the Panchayat Union Middle School. While working in this School, a complaint came to be given against the petitioner before the District Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, who has now been designated as District Educational Officer viz., the 3rd respondent in this writ petition.

3.Based on the above complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 02.04.2018. Subsequently, a charge memo came to be issued through proceedings dated 18.01.2018 and three charges were framed against the petitioner. The charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules (hereinafter referred as "the Rules").

4. The petitioner gave his explanation and apart from defending himself on the charges framed against him, also took a stand that the father-in-law of the petitioner misused his office and gave a false complaint with a malafide intention.

5. An enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner gave his explanation. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings dt.19.02.2021, came to be issued by imposing a major penalty of two years increment cut with cumulative effect under Rule 17(b) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has justified the imposition of the major penalty against the petitioner.

7. Heard Mr.D.Charles Muthu Santhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the 3rd respondent was right in imposing a major penalty against the petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b), even though the initial charge memo was issued only under Rule 17(a) of the Rules.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that after the charge memo was issued against the petitioner, the petitioner gave his explanation. This procedure was adopted on the premise that the petitioner is proceeded against under Rule 17(a) for a minor penalty. If ultimately, a minor penalty had been imposed, this procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent will suffice and in such an event, this Court could have confined its focus on the reasonings given for sustaining the minor punishment.

10. In this case, the 3rd respondent proceeded to impose a major penalty against the petitioner under Rule 17(b). This Rule deals with major penalties and the procedure to be adopted before imposing a major penalty. The 2nd proviso to Rule 17(a) of the Rules makes it clear that where it is proposed to impose punishment of withholding increment of pay with cumulative effect for any period, the procedure laid down in 17(b) should be followed before imposing the major penalty. This mandate imposed by the second Proviso to Rule 17(a) has not been followed in the present case.

11.If the 3rd respondent was satisfied that a major penalty must be imposed against the petitioner, an oral enquiry should have been held and witnesses, if any, should have been examined by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine those witnesses. If there is an adverse report given by the enquiry officer, a copy of the same should be given to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to give his explanation. Thereafter, if the 3rd respondent wanted to impose major penalty, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to give his explanation for the proposed punishment. Admitte