Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J
P.Indira - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner/ - Respondent
WP No. 39185 of 2015 and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
Decided On : 02-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.T.Ranganathan
For the Respondent:Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate
The court reaffirmed the necessity of fair disciplinary procedures, emphasizing clear communication of deviations from Enquiry Officer findings while recognizing dereliction of duty.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1955) - Rule 17(b) - Quashing of punishment order and treating suspension as duty - Enquiry Officer held charges partially proved; disciplinary authority differed without clear reasoning - Statutory appeal dismissed due to delay; fair conduct of enquiry upheld - Charges of dereliction of duty found proved; punishment modified accordingly. (Paras 2(a), 2(b), 10, 11)
(B) Fair Procedure - Disciplinary authority must adhere to fair procedures and communicate any deviation from Enquiry Officer's findings to the affected party. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Inspector, faced disciplinary action for not reporting an incident of abuse at an orphanage run by a temple; she was suspended and subsequently penalized.
Findings of Court:
The procedural conduct of the enquiry was deemed fair; the petitioner was found to have derelicted her duty.
Issues: The legality of the disciplinary authority's deviation from the Enquiry Officer’s report, the fair conduct of the enquiry, and the appropriateness of the imposed penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a clear communication and fair treatment in disciplinary processes, while confirming the authority's finding of dereliction of duty.
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; punishment modified to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.
ORDER :
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order of punishment issued by the second respondent in Na. Ka. No.6830/14/B2 dated 9.8.2014 and the consequential order of the third respondent issued in G.O.(D) No.153, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, dated 19.10.2015 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to treat the entire period of suspension from 7.2.2014 to 25.8.2014 as duty.
2(a). The petitioner is working as Inspector in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department at Namakkal District. When she was working on deputation, the first respondent has issued a charge memo under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1955 in Na.Ka.No.208/2017/A1 dated 07.02.2014. He also placed the petitioner under suspension on the same date.
2(b). The Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 are held not proved. The charge 1 was held proved. The second respondent has stated in his letter communicating the Enquiry Officer report that charges 1 and 2 are held proved, without assigning any specific reason for disagreeing the finding of the enquiry officer and also for taking deviation.
2(c). The petitioner has also submitted further explanation on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent has issued Na.Ka.No.6380/2014/B2 dated 09.08.2014 imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner has filed a statutory appeal under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to the third respondent. However, the third respondent rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on either sides and perused the available records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that charges 2, 3, 4 and 5 are held not proved and the charge 1 is held proved, the disciplinary authority has taken a different view and issued second showcause notice. The show cause notice was not signed by the Commissioner/Disciplinary Authority but signed by the Superintendent and witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner and necessary document were not served and the charges are not falls under the category of 17(b). There is violation of circular No.14353/PER/- N/93-1 P & AR Department dated 11.03.1993, wherein nature of the charges, to be framed under section 17(b) was listed out and also stated that it is a non-speaking order and enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and before imposing the punishment TNPSC was not consulted.
5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the circular in No.14353/PER/-N/93-1 P & AR Department dated 11.03.1993 is only a guideline and not mandatory. The learned Government Advocate would further state that since disciplinary authority have taken a different view with that of the enquiry officer, necessary showcause notice was issued and as per the orders of the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent has communicated the said fact and enquiry was conducted in a fair manner.
6. The competency of the officer to place the petitioner under suspension was questioned. Admittedly, the petitioner is in foreign service and hence, she is under the control of the Joint Commissioner and therefore, competent person to pass an order of suspension is Assistant Commissioner and the same is valid. Since the petitioner is in foreign service, competent officer is only Assistant Commissioner and not Joint Commissioner, and hence, the plea of petitioenr alleging that incompetency of officer to place the petitioner under suspension stands negatived.
7(a). On facts, I find that Arulmigu Sugavaneshwar Temple, Salem is running an orphanage home in the said temple. On 05.02.2014, a warden/cook had beaten the inmates of the Home. The said matter is also reported in various new
