Administrative decisions must include clear reasoning to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly when they affect individuals adversely.

ORDER :

N. Mala, J.

The present writ petition is filed for Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Proc.No.17030/ Estt.(DP)/ A4/ 2018-1 dated 22.04.2020 by which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of “CENSURE” as confirmed by the Appeal Sub- Committee as per the orders of the 1st respondent vide B.P.Ms. No.100 (Estt. (DP) wing) dated 17.11.2020 and also the order dated 04.06.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.No.C1/1792/F.1458/2020/CE/VLR and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the 627 days of the petitioner's suspension period from 07.08.2018 FN to 24.04.2020 AN as duty with all consequential benefits, including monetary and service benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner was that he joined the services of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board on 18.06.1985, as Assistant Engineer and lastly worked as Deputy Superintending Engineer, TWAD Board, Kancheepuram-Thiruvallur Circle and retired from the Service on 30.04.2021. It is stated that, in the year 2018, he was suspended on the premise that the respondent/Board was contemplating enquiry against him on the release of payment of 25% of the contract amount to a contractor viz., M/s.VVV Construction, Chennai, which was awarded contract for implementing WSIS scheme for Chidambaram Municipality and that there were some irregularities in implementing the scheme. It is further stated that as the petitioner was placed under suspension for a prolonged period, without any enquiry, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19552 of 2019, seeking quashment of the charge memo. The said writ petition was dismissed on 08.07.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.3445 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed on 17.10.2019, with a direction to expedite and conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner before the end of February 2020. Pursuant to the Division Bench order, enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 05.03.2020, to the first respondent with a categorical finding that none of the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. As the 1^st respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a communication dated 21.04.2020, was issued to the petitioner to file his defence statement on the differing view. The petitioner filed a defence statement on 21.04.2020. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2020, imposing the punishment of “CENSURE”. The 1^st respondent also passed an order on 23.04.2020, revoking the petitioner's suspension treating the period of suspension as leave. Consequent to the above order of the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent passed the order dated 04.06.2020, where under the period of suspension i.e., from 07.08.2018 FN to 24.04.2020 AN, totalling 627 days were treated as leave and 297 days, out of the said 627 days, were regularised as EOL without pay and allowances. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was placed before Appeal Sub-Committee. After careful examination of all the records, the Appeal Sub Committee confirmed the order of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the Disciplinary Authority's order on the ground that a speaking order was passed for the grave irregularities committed by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner being a Deputy Superintending Engineer, it was his duty to verify everything on the field before making payments. It was stated that due to the gross negligence of the petitioner, the Board suffered huge loss and hence taking into consideration the irregularities committed by the petitioner, the minor penalty of 'Censure' was imposed. The respondent therefore prayed that the present writ petition was lia