Disciplinary findings are unsustainable without cogent evidence, reflecting violations of natural justice principles, requiring independent evaluation by authorities.

ORDER :

1. The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the third respondent / Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the first respondent, and to quash the same.

2. By the impugned order dated 05.08.2013, the third respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of the next annual increment for a period of three years at the rate of 3% of the basic pay and grade pay, with cumulative effect, including the period, if any, spent on leave. The said order passed by the third respondent was confirmed by the first respondent – Appellate Authority.

3. The petitioner, while serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent Corporation, was issued a charge memo dated 14.09.2011 containing four charges, along with a statement of witnesses, alleging corrupt practices, fabrication of documents, and dereliction of duty. The petitioner submitted a reply denying all the charges. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the third respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The Enquiry Officer, after recording the statements of the management witnesses and the petitioner, rendered a finding that Charges 1, 3, and 4 stood proved, while Charge No. 2 was not proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the enquiry report along with a second show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a further explanation denying the charges and challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the enquiry report and the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent passed the impugned order, which was upheld by the first respondent – Appellate Authority. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Ms. V. Porkodi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the complainant, in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer, had categorically stated that the petitioner had not demanded any gratification for approval of the service connection. She further submitted that the allegation of non-cooperation with the Vigilance Team is without any substance, since the Vigilance Team, consisting of three members, was not examined by the Enquiry Officer.

6. It was further contended that the allegation of fabrication of documents is unfounded and unproved, as no witnesses were examined to establish that the entry made in the Register was at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner, the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and arbitrary. Under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the third respondent, based solely on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without considering the further explanation submitted by the petitioner, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. In response, Mr. C. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, submitted that the evidence before the Enquiry Officer clearly establishes that the petitioner had demanded gratification from the complainant for approval of the service connection. He further submitted that the petitioner had misbehaved with and failed to cooperate with the Vigilance Team at the time of enquiry, which amounts to misconduct. It was also contended that the evidence establishes that the petitioner had tampered with the Register. Therefore, when the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer are b