Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
P.Indira – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner – Respondent
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 court reaffirmed the necessity of fair disciplinary procedures, emphasizing clear communication of deviations from Enquiry Officer findings while recognizing dereliction of duty.
The Disciplinary Authority must issue a reasoned notice of disagreement when departing from exonerating findings in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Disciplinary proceedings were invalidated due to inordinate delay, lack of a reasoned order, and violations of natural justice principles, necessitating quashal of the punishment imposed.
Disciplinary Authority must provide reasons for differing from the Enquiry Officer's findings in a second show cause notice to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.
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.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited; interference warranted for procedural lapses and shockingly disproportionate post-retirement punishment.
It is well settled, by a series of rulings of Apex Court and various High Courts including Court, that in a case where disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
