Under Article 226, the High Court shall not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings or re-appreciate evidence unless there is a gross violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or punishment that shocks the conscience of the court.

ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of punishment imposed by the first respondent dated 23.4.2019 in GO(1D) No.118 School Education (Public Libraries-1) Department, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the charge memo has been issued by the authority who is not competent.

3. The petitioner has been working as District Library Officer and he was administring 173 library across the district. He was given with a charge memo stating that he had incurred expenditure without getting proper permission and there was misappropriation. At the conculsion of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been punished with a punishment of recoveryof Rs.1000/- for a period of two years and to deduct a sum of Rs. 5,12,152/- from the

gratuity due to be paid to the petitioner.

4.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been given the order of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission only along with punishment order and he was not allowed to make any representation by furnishing the copy of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission's approval before imposing the order of punishment. The further argument of the petitioner is that the person who has issued the charge memo against thepetitioner has got no jurisdiction to issue the same.

5. The petitioner has not challenged the charge memo on the ground that the charge memo has been issued by an officer who is not competent. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer without challenging the charge memo on the ground of lack of jurisidiction.

6. On perusal of the report of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission also, it appears that Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission had concurred with the punsihment proposal sent by the Government.

7. The learned counsel for thepetitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Union of India and others Vs. R.P. Singh reported in (2014) 7 Supreme Ccourt Cases 340. In the said judgemnet, it is held as under:

"26. We have referred to the aforesaid decision in extenso as we find that in the said case it has been opined by the Constitution Bench that non-supply of the enquiry report is a breach of the principle of natural justice. Advice from the UPSC, needless to say, when utilized as a material against the delinquent officer, it should be supplied in advance. As it seems to us, Rule 32 provides for supply of copy of advice to the government servant at the time of making an order. The said stage was in prevalence before the decision of the Constitution Bench. After the said decision, in our considered opinion, the authority should have clarified the Rule regarding development in the service jurisprudence."

8. The petitioner cannot establish any prejudice caused to him for not furnishing the concurrent report of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission before the awarding the punishment. Becuase the concurrence report of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would also approve the punishemnt contemplated aginst the petitoner and hecne no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

9. As the petitioner has been given with several charges and out of 23 charges, 17 charges have already been proved and there is no mateirals to make out a point that there was a violation of principle of natural justice, I find no grounds for interference. The punishment imposed fo