Disciplinary authorities must provide a fair opportunity to employees before finalizing disagreements with enquiry reports, as per principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 20.02.2024 issued by the respondent. By the said notice, the respondent being the Disciplinary Authority, had considered the findings of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai(the Enquiry Authority), and disagreed with the findings and holds the charges as proved for the reasons stated in the annexure to the impugned notice. Therefore, the petitioner is called upon to submit further representation regarding the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is working as Assistant Inspector General of Registration (Zonal) Madurai. A surprise check was held on 12.01.2018 jointly by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the District Deputy Inspector Cell Officer when the petitioner was working as District Registrar, Madurai South. Thereafter, a charge memorandum dated 26.06.2019 containing two charges was issued against the petitioner. The said charges read as follows:

3. The petitioner denied the charges against him. The petitioner’s explanation was not accepted and the matter was referred for enquiry to the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Madurai. After a detailed oral enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that on appreciation of evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and Investigating Officer PW17, the charges against the petitioner as not proved. Two years after the report, now the present show-cause notice is issued.

4. The petitioner contends that there is a huge unexplained delay of two years from the date of submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer and the present show-cause notice. The said delay vitiates the entire proceedings; therefore, at this belated point, the respondent cannot be permitted to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proceed in the matter further. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in any event, when the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to make a further representation to the respondent to persuade him to accept the report, but no such opportunity whatsoever was granted. The impugned show-cause notice is straight away issued. It can be seen from the impugned show-cause notice that already the respondent has come to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer's findings have to be disagreed and the charges are proved. Therefore, the further opportunity, which is now granted to submit an explanation within 15 days, is only a post-facto hearing and as such, is not an opportunity at all. Thus, the impugned show-cause notice is violative of the principles of natural justice.

5. Given the legal grounds raised, notice was issued to the respondents and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent contested the legal submissions based on the impugned show-cause notice and by placing the communications dated 28.02.2022 and 11.01.2023 by which it is submitted that there was some mistake in the Annexures and pages, when the enquiry report was initially submitted. It came to light when the report was scrutinized. Thereafter, once again corrected report was received on 23.11.2022. A communication was sent on 11.01.2023 and thereafter, the matter was taken up for scrutiny and the impugned show-cause notice was issued, therefore, there is no unexplained delay in the matter. In any event, in the absence of any prejudice which is caused to the petitioner, mere delay alone would not vitiate the proceedings. The learned counsel would submit that the wordings of the show-cause notice are made, according to the format which is circulated and the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Authority is only a tentative conclusion to be put across to the petitioner to elicit his explanation and only upon considering the explanation, the final finding will be reached. Therefore, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned show-cause notice.

6. Mr. Navaneetha Krishnan, learned