O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. The charge against the petitioner through the charge memo, dated

10.02.2015, was to the effect that the petitioner herein, while working as Personal Assistant to the Chief Educational Officer, had taken the Certificate of Transfer of Charges (CTC) related files from the Superintendent and handed over it to the relieved Chief Educational Officer, without the knowledge of the concerned Assistant and Superintendent, which is against the office procedure. For the same incident, the out going Chief Educational Officer, as well as the Assistant, were also implicated with separate charges.

In other words, all the three delinquents were implicated with the charges levelled around the same incident of the CTC being taken away by the out going Chief Educational Officer.

3. Through an order, dated 09.09.2015, the Joint Director (Personnel)

was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The appointment of the Enquiry Officer indicates that he was required to enquire into the delinquencies of the three delinquents. However, while the Enquiry Officer had chosen to enquire the petitioner separately and file his final report on 22.06.2016, holding all the charges against the petitioner as proved, the enquiry against the out going Chief Educational Officer was kept pending and after the final report against the petitioner was filed, the charges against the out going Chief Educational Officer was held to be proved through an enquiry report, dated 22.01.2019. Based on the proven charges, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect through the impugned order, dated 27.11.2020, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. When the charges against the petitioner herein, as well as the Chief Educational Officer revolving around the same incident and the Enquiry Officer was also appointed for the purpose of conducting an enquiry into the incident against the delinquents, such an enquiry ought to have been conducted jointly, since the charges are interrelated to each other.

5. In the case of R.Rajkumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy reported in 2014 (2) CTC 769, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had held that the respondents cannot conduct a departmental enquiry in a piece-meal manner according to their whims and fancies.

6. Likewise, in the case of Balbir Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that when there are more than one delinquent officers involved in the disciplinary proceedings, a common enquiry requires to be conducted and splitting up of the cases between the co-delinquents, should not be encouraged. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“5. It is contended that when one delinquent officer seeks to summon other delinquent who is charged on the common cause of action or for the misconduct committed during the course of the same transaction or to summon more than one officer jointly, the petitioner should be given an opportunity of splitting up the matter and to contend that common enquiry has thereby caused grave prejudice to the petitioner denying him the opportunity to summon the officer to substantiate his defence. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that these are only instructions in conducting the proceedings as guidelines. When more than one delinquent officer are involved, then with a view to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, needless delay resulting from conducting the same and overlapping adducting of evidence or omission thereof and conflict of decision in that behalf, it is always necessary and salutary that common enquiry should be conducted against all the delinquent officers. The competent authority would objectively consider their cases according to Rules and decide the matter expeditiou