Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 in G.O.(2D) No.232, Home (Police V) Department, dated 30.09.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent and also the subsequent rejection order passed by him in G.O.(2D) No.361 Home (Police V) Department dated 02.09.2022, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner entered into service as Junior Assistant on compassionate Ground on 13.04.1987 and promoted as Assistant in the year 1997 and by merit and seniority further promoted as Superintendent in the year 2010. However, his further promotion to the post of Administrative officer for the panel 2017-18 was deferred on the ground of the pending departmental action, which were initiated against him under Rule 17 (b) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules and the 2nd respondent issued the charge memo in R.C.No.PR.I/CPO/633/100390/2016 dated 06.11.2017 and totally two charges were framed against him. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Government on 20.02.2018 holding that the charges levelled against him as "not proved". However, the 1^st respondent has disagreed with the views of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charges are "proved" and issued the notice dated 01.02.2019 and directed the petitioner to submit his further explanation on the deviated views within a period of 15 days. The petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 03.09.2019 stating that the enquiry officer has analyzed the issue in detail and rightly came to the conclusion that the charges are not proved and there is no wrong with the enquiry officer report and prayed to drop the further action. However, on receipt of the further representation of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent has passed the impugned order, imposing the punishment of "Compulsory retirement".

3. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has failed to follow the established procedure while imposing the punishment, which is against the law laid down by this Hon'ble court and as well as the Hon'ble apex court, since they failed to issue two notices in the case of dissenting view. The above punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and the charges levelled against the petitioner are totally incorrect and has no basis and it is a case of no evidence and in fact the complainant itself not supported the prosecution and there is no expert opinion regarding audio or video. But unfortunately, the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Hence it is clear that the 1^st respondent has proceeded with the matter without any valid evidence in order to punish the petitioner in one way or another and it clearly shows the mala fide attitude of the respondent. Further, the opinion obtained from TNPSC, has not been served on the petitioner before passing the final order. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner while working as Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai from 25.01.2012 to 28.09.2015, a complaint was lodged against him and also against one Thiru M.Babu, Senior Administrative Officer, alleging that they demanded bribe. Therefore, for the delinquencies committed during the said period, he was dealt with on a charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Though the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, held that the charges are not proved vide his report, dated 20.02.2018, the Government, after careful and independent examination of the charges framed against th