Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when the enquiry officer acts as a presenting officer, evidence is not substantiated by witness examination or document lists, and there is inordinate, unexplained delay in finalizing the proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.11.2020, whereby petitioner, who was employed as a Wireman with the respondent Municipality was removed from service for unauthorized absence inter alia on the following grounds:

(a) Charge memo was defective (b) Charge memo was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, however punishments imposed under Rule 8(2);

(c) Charge memo issued under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, however, no enquiry was conducted;

(d) The Enquiry Officer also acted as the Presenting Officer, which is impermissible;

(e) There has been an inordinate delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings;

(f) Impugned proceedings imposing punishment of removal from service had been passed without taking into account material on record, including medical certificates.

2. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper in the Engineering Department of Tambaram Municipality vide proceedings dated 27.01.1990, through the District Employment Office, Kanchipuram. He was regularized after completion of probation. On completion of ten years of service, he was sanctioned with a Selection Grade in the said post in the year 2000. He continued to work as a Wireman Helper in the respondent Municipality till 06.11.2020. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner suffered from medical ailment and applied for leave initially from 09.10.2007 to 09.03.2008, along with medical certificate for 153 days and thereafter, from 10.03.2008 to 19.08.2008 for another 163 days, in all 316 days. Petitioner rejoined the duty on 20.08.2008 and was permitted to do so by the Commissioner of Tambaram Municipality vide order dated 05.03.2009. In the meanwhile, a Charge memo dated 05.03.2009 was issued under Rule 8(1) alleging misconduct of unauthorized absence from 09.10.2007, followed by another Charge memo dated 25.10.2010, again invoking Rule 8(1). A third Charge memo came to be issued for charges of unauthorized absence from 26.02.2011 invoking Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. It is the case of petitioner that none of these Charge memo had a list of witnesses nor list of documents, that by itself according to the petitioner, would vitiate the entire disciplinary proceeding.

3. He would also submit that the enquiry was made only with the reference to the first two Charge memos, which were issued invoking Rule 8(1), which only provided for minor punishments, which did not include removal from service. It is only the third Charge memo, where Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Disciplinary and Appeal Rules was invoked, which provided for major punishments inter alia including removal from service. He would also submit that there was no Presenting officer, the Enquiry Officer also acted as the Presenting Officer, which would vitiate the proceedings, in support thereof, he would place reliance on the following judgements:

(i) Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Another , (2008) 3 SCC 484

(ii) State of Uttaranchal and Others vs. Kharak Singh , (2009) 2 SCC 236

(iii) Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National and Others , (2009) 2 SCC 570

(iv) Chhel Singh vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & Others, (2014) 13 SCC 166

(v) H.P. State Electricity Board vs. Mahesh Dahiya , (2016) 8 MLJ 695