Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with inquiry findings and allow representation before imposing penalties, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition was earlier closed by this Court based on the submission of the petitioner on 11.08.2022.

2. Subsequently, an application was filed for reopening of the case. Recording the submissions of the petitioner, an Order was passed on 23.08.2024 in W.M.P.No.25315 of 2024 and thereby the Writ Petition was restored to the files of this Court.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the 1^st respondent which was affirmed by the 1^st respondent on 17.10.2014 while disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

4. By an order dated 23.11.2012, the 2^nd respondent has inflicted the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 6 months without cumulative effective on the petitioner.

5. The impugned proceedings/order dated 23.11.2012 emanates from the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2009.

6. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner while working as an Accountant at Sub Treasury, Rasipuram, had connived with one S.Charles Karamchand, formerly Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Rasipuram and had demanded and accepted illegal gratification during the period between 21.02.2005 and 08.08.2007 from 7 pensioners to settle their pension. The aforesaid Charge Memo dated 12.03.2009 reads as under:-

“Charge No.1

While working Accountant at Sub Treasury Rasipuram, Thiru K.Mohana Madhavan in connivance with Thiru S.Charles Karamchand, formerly Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Rasipuram has demanded and accepted illegal gratification during the period between 21.02.2005 to 08.08.2007 from the following pensioners to settle their pension.

Thus, he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.”

7. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed who ultimately gave an Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2009 wherein, it was the view of the Inquiry Officer that the charges against the petitioner of the alleged demand for bribe from the above named pensioners had not been proved.

8. Disagreeing with the same, the 1^st respondent issued a 2^nd Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2011 along with the Inquiry Report.

9. The only reason given in the aforesaid 2^nd Show Cause Notice is that the views of the Inquiry Officer cannot be accepted as the Departmental Proceedings are governed by Preponderance of Probability and not by strict rules of evidence (or) proof beyond the reasonable doubt. The reasons recorded in the 2^nd Show Cause Notice reads as under:-

“2. The undersigned, after careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer for the following reasons:-

10. The petitioner has responded to the same which has culminated in an Order of Punishment dated 23.11.2012.

11. In the Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.112, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-2) Department, the 1^st respondent has summarized the views of the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2009 but has however proceeded to confirm the charges framed in the Charge Memo dated 12.03.2009 based on the reasons given in the 2^nd Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2011 which has been extracted above.

12. On a review, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the 1^st respondent by an Order dated 17.10.2014 wherein, the 1^st respondent has reiterated the findings in the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012.

13. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents reiterates and submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.