IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that deviations from an Enquiry Officer's findings can be justified if serious misconduct is established, and the imposed penalty must align with the gravity of the charges.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the Learned Judge dated 04.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.19662 of 2006 and thereby allow the writ petition filed by the appellant.]

The writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant was holding the post of Senior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, which is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking. On 02.12.2002 two sets of charge memorandums were issued to the appellant and the charges are as under;

“Charge 1: That she had drawn the advance amount of Rs.6000/- on 15.05.98 for purchase of computer stationery and did not utilise the same for the purpose for which it was obtained and thereby temporarily misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and also failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated Rules 6.14(vii), 6.14(viii), 6.14(xii) and 6.1(a), 6.1(b) read with 6.14(xiii) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.

Charge 2: That she failed to obtain stamped receipt for Rs.5,000/- from the supplier, M/s. Ahana Computers and made the payment in cash to the supplier against norms and thereby violated Rules 6.14(vii), 6.14(viii), 6.14(xii) and 6.1(a), 6.1(b) read with 6.14(xiii) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.

Charge 3: That her conduct as above is unbecominig of an employee of a Financial Corporation and thereby violated Rule 6.1(c) read with 6.14(xiii) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.”

2. On the very same date, another charge memo was issued by the first respondent for the charges as under;

“Charge 1: That she manipulated the attendance register and signed in the place for 2/9/98, 3/9/98, 4/9/98, 7/9/98 and 8/9/98 as if she had attended the office in time on those days and thereby violated Rule 6.14(vii), 6.14(viii), 6.14(xii) and 6.1(a) read with 6.14(xiii) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.

Charge 2: That she manipulated the attendance register and signed the attendance register as if she attended the office on 5/6/98, 6/7/98, 9/7/98, 9/9/98 and 15/9/98 when she had not attended the office on those days and thereby violated Rules 6.14(vii), 6.15(viii), 6.14(xii) and 6.1(a), 6.1(b) read with 6.14 (xiii) of the service Rules of the Corporation.

Charge 3: That she intentionally and with ulterior motive committed the above irregularities and her conduct is unbecoming of an employee of a financial institution and thereby, violated Rules 6.4(c) read with 6.14(xiii) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.”

3. The appellant submitted explanations denying the charges. Not satisfied with the statement of defence, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the delinquent Officer participated in the process of enquiry and defended her case. Though certain charges held as not proved by the Enquiry Officer in his report, the Disciplinary Authority deviated the findings and issued show cause notice assigning reasons. In other words with reference to the deviated findings, the Disciplinary Authority afforded an opportunity to the delinquent Officer to submit further explanation on the findings, which all are deviated. Further representations were received by the Disciplinary Authority and final order passed imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Writ Court considered the issues and dismissed the writ petition by confirming the punishment. Thus, the present writ appeal came to be preferred.

4. Mr. L. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly submit that the Enquiry Officer after deliberations held that the charges are not proved. While so, there is no reason to deviate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. There is no additional materials available on record to form an opinion to deviate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has arrived a provisional conclusion in advance, which would reveal that the authority has predetermined the issues.