COMMON ORDER

These two writ petitions have been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.12492/E2/2018-06, dated 07.10.2021 and Letter No.3975/A2/2020-07, dated 07.10.2021.

2. According to the writ petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and he was retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2014 as Joint Commissioner. He was suspended from service on the basis of charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The 3rd respondent/Enquiry Officer has conducted an enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the 1st respondent on 11.03.2016.. According to the petitioner, the vigilance enquiry was dropped against the petitioner by proceedings dated 28.09.2016, on the basis that there is no evidence. Therefore, the 1st respondent has framed a fresh charge memo on 14.07.2017, on the basis of alleged deficiencies in inspections conducted in the premises of 11 dealers by the petitioner's subordinates. The petitioner submitted his objection for the aforesaid charge memo on 11.08.2017 and he has also submitted his further objection on 23.10.2017. The 4th respondent, who is the enquiry officer has submitted his report to the 1st respondent on 02.12.2019. Thereafter, based on the enquiry report, the 1st respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner by his letter dated 30.09.2020. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation for the aforesaid notice issued by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner has received the impugned order from the 1st respondent confirming the findings of the enquiry officers without discussing any of his objections. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed and the same will be remanded back to the 1st respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have considered the explanation of the petitioner and after having not satisfied with the said explanation, the aforesaid impugned order has been passed by imposing punishment of cut in pension for a period of one year.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials on record.

6. The crux of the issue involved in the present case on hand is, whether the 1st respondent has passed a reasoned order while considering the petitioner's explanation.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court on various decisions held that the Appellate Authority must not only give a hearing to the government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him/her in the appeal. Following various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court, in the case of N.Sivakumaran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others, reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 701 had held as follows;

“ 32. In the case of an appeal against the order of imposing any penalty under Rules 8 or 9, the appellate authority shall consider as to whether (1) the facts on which the order was passed have been established, (2) the facts established offered sufficient ground for taking action and (3) the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate and passed orders confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or committed remitting the case to the authority of which imposed the penalty, with such direction as it may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Clause ii of Rule 23 (1) states that any error or defect in the procedural violation in imposing penalty may be disregarded by the appellate authority if such authority considers for the reason to be recorded in