IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of following disciplinary procedures and rules of natural justice, and highlighted the need for justifying punishments based on preponderance of probabilities when direct proof is lacking.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 (served on 04.02.2021) made in ROC No.1059/2015/C1 passed by the first respondent confirming the punishment of withholding increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed in the order dated 07.05.2013 made in A.No.4/Comp/2007-D.No.6593 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant notional promotions to the post of Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Grade II Bench Clerk and the Head Clerk of Sub Court, on par with the petitioner's position as on the date of the order of punishment and grant pay fixation, arrears and revised pension benefits to the petitioner.)

1. The punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner in proceedings dated 07.05.2013 confirmed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings dated 29.06.2019, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Bailiff and promoted to the post of Bench Clerk Grade-II and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2013. A charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 12.04.2007. The charge was "that while K.Natarajan Assistant is not a custodian on the first Additional Sub Court case bundles, has caused commission of tampering the suit pro-note with smudger in OS No.275 of 2005 and thereby committed dereliction of duty”.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charge. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn had conducted enquiry and submitted Final Report on 21.12.2012.

4. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. The report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and by enclosing the report, a second show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner, seeking his further objections on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner defended his case by submitting his objections. The Disciplinary Authority passed final order, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was rejected vide proceedings dated 26.09.2016. Thus the present writ petition came to be instituted.

5. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is not definite about the misconduct of dereliction of duty allegedly committed by the petitioner. Based on certain presumptions, the Disciplinary Authority arrived a conclusion, which is impermissible in view of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The holistic reading of the above provisions require a definite finding regarding the charges and in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority presumed that the petitioner committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty. Thus the order of punishment is infirm and liable to be set aside.

6. A common enquiry was conducted in respect of three employees working in the same Court. Though the petitioner has pointed out the lapses of other employees, that was not taken into consideration both by the Enquiry Officer and by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus the order is to be set aside.

7. Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Disciplinary Authority considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer in right perspective. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved against all the three employees. While-so,