Point of Law: Judicial concept “Not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done” evolved - Ever since this concept has gained global popularity and acceptance as a judicial principle.

ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services II.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in imposing the punishment of reduction of Rank i.e. to lower time scale of Junior Assistant vide impugned proceedings No. G/79/2014, dated 11.02.2020 on the dictates of the higher authority viz. the 1st respondent and the Vigilance Commission and that too, after concluding that a punishment of censure would be appropriate and that the petitioner was instrumental in informing the lapses on part of the regular sub-registrar to the higher authorities, as being arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, irrational, grossly disproportionate and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Senior Assistant and be considered and promoted as Sub-registrar Grade II duly treating the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes with benefits incidental and ancillary thereto in the interest of justice.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the Registration Department in the year 2010 and later promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2012. While working as such, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06.05.2014 of the 3rd respondent on the alleged ground that while functioning as In-charge-Sub-Registrar Grade II on certain occasions, he was responsible for certain lapses.

(b) The petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 05.11.2014. The petitioner submitted denial to the 3rd respondent that the enquiry officer has overlooked many crucial facts and also erred in finding that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the higher authorities and that the enquiry officer omitted to consider the explanation to the charges and finally requested the 3rd respondent to drop further action.

(c) The 1st respondent has directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to impose the penalty of reduction of rank vide memo No. 12850/Vig.I(2)/2019-1, dated 08.01.2020.

(d) The respondents took almost five years to conclude the proceedings and just before effecting promotion to the posts of sub-Registrars Grade II, punishment of reversion is imposed. The allegations pertain to 2013-14 and it took nearly seven years to conclude the same and the petitioner is not responsible for the delay. Prolonged disciplinary proceedings have caused prejudice to the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the next higher post. The same is also in violation of the time limit prescribed for completion of the enquiries in Rule 20 TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and G.O.Ms. No. 679, dated 01.11.2008. Therefore, this writ petition is filed.

4. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of the other respondents. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The correspondence between the disciplinary authority and the Government is only an administrative procedure, which do not have any impact in taking a decision by the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment. Since the instant case relates to the financial proprietary of a responsible public servant, adequate major punishment is appropriate.

(b) In the case of misappropriation, as per G.O.Ms. No. 25 GAD, dated 03.02.2004, dismissal from the service is the general punishment. As the loss of revenue was recovered, the disciplinary authority awarded lesser punishment i.e. reduction in lower rank i.e. to a lower time scale.

(c) The disciplinary authority acted upon the directions of the Government is not correct. The enquiry officer followed the relevant rule while conducting enquiry and submitted report. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 in I.A. No.