Procedural violations in disciplinary proceedings, specifically failing to follow due process and disregarding the Enquiry Officer's findings, necessitate quashing of the punishment.

O R D E R

The petitioner joined service as Junior Assistant in the Education Department on 05.08.1985. He was found guilty of misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings and he was imposed punishment of reduction of time scale of pay for one month, with effect from 01.01.2015 to 31.01.2015. Being aggrieved, the writ petition is filed to quash the order of punishment.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, while he was serving as Superintendent in the Office of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer (AEEO), Valparai between 02.07.2012 to 31.01.2015, it was found that the monthly salary bill for teachers for the month of August 2012 presented to Sub- Treasury with forged signature of the AEEO, in the Effacement Bill. Holding, the petitioner has violated the Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. Charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules and explanation from the petitioner was called. The Enquiry Officer, after enquiry found that on the date of presenting the alleged forged effacement bill, the petitioner was not physically present in the Treasury Office. Further, there is no evidence to prove the alleged forgery was by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge of forgery not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority, relying on the explanation given by the petitioner, in which he has admitted forging the signature of AEEO. Taking into consideration the exigency of the absence of AEEO and the probable delay in passing the salary bill of the staff, disagreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of reduction in time scale of pay for one month vide proceedings dated 19.01.2015.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal to the

2^nd respondent. On appeal, the 2^nd respondent confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and rejected the appeal vide proceedings dated 09.04.2015 relying on the alleged admission.

4. The writ petition is filed on the ground that, after due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had found the charge not proved, based on the fact that the alleged forgery in the effacement bill not proved to have been committed by the writ petitioner. While the fact being so, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority disagreed with the findings and reasoning of the Enquiry Officer and had imposed major punishment of reduction in time scale of pay. It is contended that this arbitrary exercise of power by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority has caused grave prejudice and financial loss to the writ petitioner.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner primarily submitted that if the Disciplinary Authority want to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he should have caused show-cause notice and sought for explanation. In this case, without affording an opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the explanation given under duress, had imposed grave punishment, have perpetual effect in the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Rule 20(1)

of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, contended that the Appellate Authority failed to follow the procedure envisaged. The procedural violation violating natural justice principle need to be interfered.

7. Rule 20(1) of TNCS (D&A) Rules reads as below:-

20.(1) A member of a State Service or a member of a Subordinate Service including a person who has ceased to be a member of such service in whose case the Government have passed original orders, shall be entitled to submit, within a period of two months from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a petition to the Government for review of the orders passed by them on any of the grounds specified below:- (a) that the order was not passed by