O R D E R

The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Horticulture Officer on 6.10.1986 and presently he is working at the office of Assistant Director Horticulture, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District. During inspection conducted by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sivagangai, they found some discrepancies thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.27,12,997/- for the reason of deficiencies in fruit plants and grafted plants and based on the aforesaid allegation, charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the enquiry officer, punishment order has been passed imposing punishment as well as recovery.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court by alleging that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation before the enquiry officer. The respondent without considering the said explanation, simply accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment to the petitioner.

3. The writ petition came up before this Court for admission, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent on instruction would submit that the enquiry was held as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules.

4. This Court in the case of R.Kannan Vs. The Chairman, Transport Corporation Board, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another [W.P.No.26310 of 2009 dated 9.12.2021] while deciding the identical issue (by me) has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and held as under:

''7. This Court in 2018(2) CWC 580 (R.

Bagavathi Chandran Vs. Inspector General of Registration,O/o. the Registration Department), while considering the scope and ambit of Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, has held as under:

“

18. Taking into account the principles mentioned in the aforesaid Judgments, it would clearly indicate that even an Administrative Authority, who is entrusted with the task of passing Order in Disciplinary Proceedings, must have recorded reasons for come to such conclusion to inflict the punishment on the delinquent and if such reasons are not recorded by the said authority, certainly, the Order passed by the authority shall be vitiated. If we applied the aforesaid parameters and principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case especially in the context of Para 6 of the impugned Order, as the said Para alone gives reasons in three lines by the First Respondent to come to the conclusion to inflict the maximum punishment of removal of service against the petitioner, certainly it would disclose that the impugned order Order does not meet the aforesaid parameters or principle laid down in the said Judgments and also it does not meet the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, on the ground of non-recording of reasons by the Disciplinary Authority independently by applying the mind of the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned Order of Punishment, is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned Order, since it is vitiated for the said reasons alone is liable to be quashed.

20. In the result, the impugned Order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the First Respondent for reconsideration. While making reconsideration, the First Respondent shall apply his mind independently and record his own reasoning in each of the charges framed against the Petitioner as well as the defence given by the petitioner and also the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, in that regard and pass Orders thereon. It is made clear that this Court, while quashing the impugned Order, does not express any opinion about the merits of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. The impugned Order is quashed only on th