A disciplinary authority must follow procedural rules that require evidence to substantiate charges; failure to do so renders proceedings invalid and punishments imposed unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2024 in W.P.No.6839 of 2017, wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ petitioner was set aside and the appellants were directed to settle the consequential benefits.

2. The respondent herein while he was working as Tahsildar in Tambaram Taluk, was visited with the charge memo dated 02.03.2010 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereafter referred to as “the Rules”] by framing three charges. The charges came to be issued mainly on the ground that the respondent had passed an order on 11.09.2002 for effecting change of register, based on the petition of one Thiru.K.Krishnan dated 16.08.2002 in respect of the Government lands measuring an extent of 10 acres in Survey No.657/1A2 of Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, which is classified as Sarkar Poramboku-Kazhuveli.

3. The respondent submitted his reply on 30.06.2010 and not satisfied with the reply an enquiry officer was appointed. In the enquiry only one document that is the order dated 11.09.2002, was filed and no witnesses were examined. After completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 02.11.2010, holding that all the three charges have not been proved.

4. However, since the respondent was to attain superannuation, by order dated 30.06.2011, he was placed under suspension and he was also not allowed to retire and retained in service in view of Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c). Thereafter the disciplinary authority deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer and issued notice dated 23.08.2011 to the respondent calling for his explanation, by recording the reasons for deviation in the Annexure.

5. After receiving the further explanation from the respondent on 10.09.2011, the authority came to the conclusion that all the three charges framed against the respondent are proved and arrived at a provisional decision to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. Pursuant to which, the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were sought for and after receiving the views on 19.12.2011, the second appellant/disciplinary authority issued G.O.(3D) No.2 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 03.02.2012, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. The respondent had preferred an appeal before the first appellant on 09.04.2012 and the appellate authority by G.O.(1D) No.388 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 30.08.2016 had rejected the appeal.

6. In the meantime, the second appellant also, by G.O.(2D) No.262 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 17.08.2016 passed separate orders for reduction in pension of 33% permanently and also for recovery of Rs.25,000/- from his death-cum-retirement gratuity, in view of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed. The penalty of reduction in pension has been challenged by the respondent in a separate writ petition. Assailing the orders of the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority