1. Disciplinary proceedings alleging production of bogus degree certificate — Enquiry officer found charges not proved — Disciplinary authority deviated and imposed compulsory retirement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.S. RAMESH
R.MATHANAGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION – Respondent
W.A.No.1442 of 2021|CMP.No.8969 of 2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.Ranganathan, S.N.Ravichandran
For the Respondents: P.Anandakumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.Ranganathan, S.N.Ravichandran
For the Respondents: P.Anandakumar
A disciplinary authority cannot rely on a discrete enquiry report to deviate from the enquiry officer's findings without furnishing it to the delinquent; failure to do so violates natural justice and allows direct challenge under Article 226 despite alternate remedy.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1973 - Rule 9(2) and 9(3) - Disciplinary proceedings - Deviation from Enquiry Officer's findings - Disciplinary authority relied on discrete enquiry report without furnishing to delinquent - Non-speaking order - Violation of principles of natural justice - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition despite alternate remedy - Exception when there is violation of natural justice - Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] applied.
(B) Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Enquiry Officer held charges not proved - Disciplinary authority deviated based on preponderance of probabilities and discrete enquiry - Duty to furnish such report and provide opportunity - Failure amounts to violation of natural justice - Punishment of compulsory retirement quashed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Sanitary Inspector, was charged with producing a bogus B.Sc Chemistry degree certificate and using it for Food Inspector training. The Enquiry Officer held the charges 'not proved'. The Disciplinary Authority deviated, relying on a discrete enquiry that found the certificate bogus, and imposed compulsory retirement. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not availed the statutory appeal remedy. The appellant appealed.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that the disciplinary authority's order was a non-speaking order and violated natural justice because the discrete enquiry report was not furnished to the appellant. The exception to the alternate remedy rule applies when there is violation of natural justice, as per Whirlpool Corporation case. Consequently, the punishment order was quashed and the respondent was directed to treat the appellant as having continued in service till superannuation with all consequential benefits.
Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary authority's deviation from the enquiry officer's findings without furnishing the discrete enquiry report violated principles of natural justice? (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of a statutory appeal remedy?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a disciplinary authority relies on a discrete enquiry to deviate from the enquiry officer's findings, the report of that enquiry must be furnished to the delinquent to afford an opportunity of explanation. Non-compliance violates natural justice, and in such cases, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable without exhausting alternate remedies.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed. The impugned punishment order dated 24.12.2010 is quashed. Respondent directed to pass orders treating appellant as continued in service till superannuation with all consequential benefits within four weeks. No costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued violation of natural justice and procedure — Respondent argued writ petition not maintainable due to alternate remedy. (Para 6 )
3. Writ appeal allowed — Punishment of compulsory retirement quashed — Respondent directed to treat appellant as continuously in service and grant consequential benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Is a writ petition under Article 226 maintainable without exhausting statutory appeal when there is a violation of natural justice?
Yes, as held in Whirlpool Corporation, the alternate remedy is not a bar in cases involving violation of natural justice. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. What procedural requirements must a disciplinary authority follow when deviating from an enquiry officer's findings?
The disciplinary authority must furnish any discrete enquiry report relied upon and provide its own reasoned findings; failure to do so violates natural justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
JUDGMENT
M.S.RAMESH.J,
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 18.12.2020 made in W.P.No.2857 of 2011.
2. When the appellant herein was working as a Sanitary Inspector in Udagamandalam, a charge memo dated 04.08.2005 was framed under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Service (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). While the first charge against him was that he had obtained and produced a bogus certificate for B.Sc Chemistry degree and cheated the Government, which is a criminal offence, the second charge was that he had undergone Food Inspectors' training conducted by the Director of Public Health, by producing a bogus certificate and acted as a Food Inspector by lifting food samples, which is highly irregular.
3. Not being satisfied with the explanation dated 22.08.2005 for the purpose, domestic enquiry was conducted against him. During the course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had held both the charges as 'not proved'. However, the Disciplinary Authority, through his proceedings dated 28.08.2009, had deviated from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, predominantly, on a preponderance of probabilities that he had not preferred a police complaint with regard to the bogus degree certificate issued by a Private Study Centre and also that he had not made any attempt to prove that the degree certificate was bona fide. The Disciplinary Authority had also disagreed with the appellant that the degree certificate was not required for any promotion or higher pay.
4. The further explanation dated 11.01.2010 to the deviation proceedings was rejected, and after finding that both the charges against him were proved, the Authority had imposed punishment of compulsory retirement as a measure of penalty, with a rider that his pension and gratuity may be allowed at a rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full compensation pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. When this punishment was put to challenge before this Court in W.P.No.2857 of 2011, the learned Single Judge, without addressing the grounds raised in the Writ Petition, had rejected the same with liberty to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the Competent Authority. This order passed in the Writ Petition dated 18.12.2020 is assailed in the present Writ Appeal.
5.1 Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, after deviating from the Enquiry Officer's findings, is violative of the principles of natural justice. According to him, Rule 9(3) of the Regulations provides for issuance of a show cause notice, after the Competent Authority arrives at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, together with a copy of the report of the Enquiring Authority and extending an opportunity to render the delinquent's explanation, which show cause notice has not been issued.
5.2 It is the submission of the learned counsel that since the punishment order is in gross violation of the procedure contemplated for imposing a major penalty, the appellant would be entitled to challenge the punishment order by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though an alternate statutory appeal remedy was available.
6. Per contra, Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent submitted that when the Regulations provide for an appeal remedy, the Writ Petition, challenging the punishment order cannot be maintained, without availing the statutory remedy. As an alternate submission, the Disciplinary Authority had rightly found that since the B.Sc Degree Certificate was found to be bogus, the Food Inspector training undergone by him, on the strength of the bogus certificate, is highly irregular. Therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, which commemorates with the gravity of the charges.
7. We have given our careful considerations to the s
