Procedural irregularity and lack of natural justice can invalidate disciplinary proceedings.

O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.07.2018 bearing reference No.GO(3D) No.89, Agriculture (AA7) Department, issued by the second respondent. By the said order, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of deduction of Rs.750/- per month from his pension for a period of one year and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,31,218/- from his Death-

cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) in respect of the charges held proved.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Joint Director in the Horticulture Department, was issued a charge memorandum dated 12.01.2017 alleging lapses in the distribution of inputs to farmers under the Integrated Horticulture Development Programme and the National Medicinal Crops Movement Programme in Villathikulam Block of Thoothukudi District during the financial year 2009–2010.

3. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges.

Not being satisfied with the same, departmental proceedings were initiated. An enquiry was conducted, during which the Enquiry Officer recorded the defence statement of the petitioner and the statements of beneficiaries under the Scheme. Upon appreciation of the materials on record, the Enquiry Officer held that five out of the six charges stood proved and Charge No.3 was not proved. A second show cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted a further explanation disputing the findings of the Enquiry Officer and contending, inter alia, that the enquiry report furnished to him was incomplete. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order.

4. Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Additional Director of Horticulture, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, had impermissibly delegated the task of recording statements of beneficiaries to five Deputy Directors. It was submitted that such delegation vitiates the enquiry proceedings, particularly when the statements were recorded neither in the presence of the petitioner nor in the presence of the Enquiry Officer. It was further contended that the enquiry report furnished to the petitioner was incomplete and that the impugned order is therefore, vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and that the Enquiry Officer had merely sought the assistance of subordinate officers to record statements of numerous beneficiaries. Such assistance, it was contended, does not amount to an impermissible delegation of powers nor does it vitiate the enquiry. It was further submitted that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner and that the petitioner had, in fact, consented to the imposition of punishment. It was also stated that certain pages of the enquiry report were removed by officers of the Horticulture Department and that non supply of some papers would not, by itself, cause prejudice to the petitioner.

6. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31.

7. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record have been duly considered.

8. A perusal of the incomplete enquiry report produced in the typed set of papers reveals that five Deputy Directors were assigned the task of recording statements of beneficiaries. I