Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings limited; interference warranted for procedural lapses and shockingly disproportionate post-retirement punishment.

JUDGMENT :

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

The order dated 07.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 9979 of 2017 is under challenge.

2. Originally, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the first appellant in G.O.Ms. (P) No. 107, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E1) Department, dated 08.03.2017.

3. According to the appellants, while the first respondent was serving as Assistant Project Officer (Rural) and had earlier held full additional charge as District Panchayat Secretary, Theni, she was charge-sheeted under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, vide charge memo dated 04.08.2008 issued by the fourth appellant, the District Collector, Theni, pursuant to G.O.Ms. No.19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.02.2008, and nine charges were framed against her.

Charge No.1:

That she has not followed the instructions issued by the Collector on 09.09.2007 and without following the tender rules, proceeded to call for the quotations for the purchase of street lights to the value of Rs.20 lakhs on 09.08.2007 and approved the same without knowledge of the Collector.

Charge No.2:

That she did not follow the transparency in Tender rules and G.O.Ms.No. 446, Finance Department, dated 26.09.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.286, Rural Development Department, dated 31.12.1998 for the purchase of tubelight.

Charge No.3:

That she did not follow the Rule 14(3) of Transparency in Tender Rules while issuing notice.

Charge No.4:

That without following the Tender rules prescribing the conditions that for all the works/purchases exceeding Rs.10 lakhs paper publication is absolutely essential.

Charge No.5:

That she deliberately violated the Rule 10(1) of the said rules that local market rates shall be considered before finalising the tender.

Charge No.6:

That she had failed to deduct 2.5 % income tax from the supplier and thus caused loss to the revenue to the tune of Rs.1,29,931/-.

Charge No.7:

That she had failed to collect 4% Sales Tax in the bill amount and thus made a loss of Rs.79,958/-.

Charge No.8:

That she had failed to with held 10% of bill value.

Charge No.9:

That she had failed to maintain the absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 1973.

4. The first respondent submitted her explanation on 04.09.2008, denying the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry. According to the first respondent, no witnesses were listed in Annexure No. IV of the charge memo, and only three documents were relied upon. However, the Enquiry Officer referred to documents that were not mentioned in the charge memo, without furnishing copies to the first respondent or giving prior intimation. Similarly, although no witnesses were cited in the charge memo, the appellants produced and examined witnesses during the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the explanation submitted by the first respondent and merely reiterated the charges, concluding that they stood proved.

5. It is seen from records, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 18.06.2009, to which she submitted her further explanation. Meanwhile, she attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2009 and was permitted to retire, without prejudice to the pending departmental proceedings, vide G.O. Ms. No. 47 dated 29.01.2009. In the meantime, the first appellant, vide her letter dated 13.05.2010, sought a reply regarding the proposed punishment of recovery from the DCRG amount. She submitted her explanation on 15.06.2010, refuting the proposed