Disciplinary proceedings were invalidated due to inordinate delay, lack of a reasoned order, and violations of natural justice principles, necessitating quashal of the punishment imposed.

ORDER :

1. Writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 11.12.2020 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Director in the Department of Welfare of Differently Abled Persons. On 29.06.2019, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1955, levelling five charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 26.07.2019. The 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer who submitted his report on 29.08.2019. Meanwhile, on the eve of petitioners retirement from service, he was issued with a suspension order dated 29.08.2019. Thereafter vide order dated 30.08.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service. Based on the enquiry officer's report, the Director of Department of Welfare of Differently Abled persons, issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.2019, calling for the petitioner's explanation on the findings of the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner on 14.10.2019, submitted his explanation to the findings of the enquiry officer. Thereafter, on 10.01.2020, the Secretary to Government, directed the petitioner to submit his explanation on the findings of the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 13.01.2010, and pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued the letter dated 23.05.2020, calling for the petitioner's explanation to the proposed punishment. The petitioner vide his reply dated 28.05.2020, objected to the proposed punishment. However, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order in G.O. (D) No.46, Welfare of the Differently Abled Persons (WDA.1) Department, dated 11.12.2020, imposing the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.500/- per month for 12 months and recovery of Rs.3,52,000/- from the petitioners DCRG amount. Aggrieved by the impugned punishment, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. The respondents filed counter denying all the allegations and contentions raised in the petitioner's affidavit. The respondents submitted that based on the preliminary enquiry, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The respondents submitted that after conducting a fullfledged enquiry and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report, finding that all the 5 charges against the petitioner were proved. The respondents submitted that after giving the petitioner full opportunity to submit his explanations to the enquiry officer's report and the proposed punishment, the impugned order was passed. The respondents further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after scrutinizing the relevant documents gave concurrence to the action taken by the respondents, vide letter dated 14.10.2020. The respondents therefore submitted that there was no infirmity or illegality in the disciplinary proceedings and as the charges against the petitioner were proved the punishment was imposed under the impugned order. The respondents hence prayed that the writ petition deserved to the dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was vitiated and deserved to be set aside as it was a non-speaking order. The learned counsel submitted that the entire disciplinar