HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
K.Thangavelu – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent
Disciplinary Action - Employment - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - 17A - The court found that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were flawed due to the reliance on vague, anonymous complaints and lack of proper inquiry, leading to a quashing of the punishment imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Veterinary Surgeon, was punished with a stoppage of increment based on an anonymous complaint alleging communal and gender bias. The inquiry lacked transparency as the petitioner was not provided with the complaint's specifics and no substantial evidence was presented against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the inquiry conducted was inadequate, with vague allegations and no concrete evidence to substantiate the claims against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's explanation and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without providing a reasoned decision.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules, considering the reliance on an anonymous complaint and the lack of substantive evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary actions must be based on clear and substantiated allegations; vague and anonymous complaints fail to meet the standards of fairness and due process as required under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, quashing the disciplinary orders against the petitioner.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 16.02.2022 thereby rejected the review filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent thereby imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of three month without cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner had joined in the service of the respondents department on 25.04.1988 as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Veterinary Surgeon in the cadre of Assistant Director on 28.12.2012. He supervised Veterinary institution in two taluks viz., Erode and Perundurai, which has 41 veterinary dispensaries 18 Sub- Centers and also for implementing various welfare schemes floated by Government of Tamilnadu from time to time. This also includes selection of beneficiaries as per norms of Government, imparting training and educating the beneficiaries in rearing and selection of healthy animals in their day to day life. This also includes promoting livestock insurance schemes, monthly inspection of scheme activities, conduct of monthly health camps and free medical assistance to the animals reared by beneficiaries, monitoring outbreak of animal diseases and related preventive activities like providing vaccination and other medical solutions. However, there was acute shortage of staff to carry out the above functions. The petitioner had sought for permission and ratification to use the field staff for office work by making alternate arrangements without affecting the routine activities of the field staff and in accordance with the workload of each of such field staff.
3. While being so, one signed anonymous complaint was lodged as against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had acted in communal bias and he had also shown gender bias. On receipt of the said complaint, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry without even serving copy of the complaint to the petitioner. After receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with show cause notice under Rule 17A of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation and without satisfying with the explanation, the 2nd respondent awarded punishment of withholding the payment of increment for three months without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the same was also rejected by an order dated 09.08.2017. Once again, the petitioner filed review before the 1st respondent and the same was also rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 16.02.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without referring any of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority mechanically imposed punishment without stating any reasons. The enquiry was conducted on the basis of vague and anonymous complaint with regards to communal and gender bias allegations. Even before the enquiry officer, the said charges were not supported by any valid documents, since there was no such incidents which has taken place. In fact because of the said alleged communal and gender bias, the petitioner did not get any pecuniary benefits. The petitioner was targeted for some other reasons with false allegations by the persons who have been affected by the official duties assigned to the staff or on being questioned about their conduct in the office. No one deposed against the petitioner before the enquiry officer in order to prove the charge. Even then, the enquiry officer held as against the petitioner as charge proved.
5. On perusal of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent stating that several complaints were received as against the petitioner alleging that he was treating the veterinary Assistant Surgeons and staffs working under his control
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.