Held that imposing punishment based on a Disciplinary Authority's differing view from an Inquiry Officer's finding of no guilt is invalid if the employee is not heard. Quashed the penalty orders for violation of natural justice principles.
Impugned orders of disciplinary and appellate authorities were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Writ Petition No.11733 of 2007 (O.A.No.6349 of 2002)
V.Navaneethan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Commercical Taxes Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Madurai Division, Madurai. ... Respondents
This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.6349 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the Proceedings No.20044/95/A8 dated 13.02.1998 of the third respondent and the proceedings No.Y2/49781/98 dated 25.05.2001 of the second respondent and the consequential order issued in GO(D)No.86 Commercial Taxes dated 24.04.2002 passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Rajan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner filed O.A.No.6349 of 2002. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.11733 of 2007.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The petitioner was working as an Assistant -2 in the office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Palani Circle II. He was issued with a charge memo dated 08.11.1995 under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An Enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer gave his report, dated 14.06.1996 holding that there was no loss to the Government. However, the third respondent viz., Disciplinary Authority, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were proved and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect, by an order dated 13.02.1998.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court has surveyed all the judgments on this aspect and has categorically held that when Enquiry Officer held the charges are not proved, the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment straightaway, without hearing the delinquent on the differed views of the disciplinary authority from that of the Enquiry Officer, is bad and illegal. The Division Bench relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court for coming to the aforesaid conclusion:-
i) Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (2) CTC 742 (SC) : 1998 (7) SCC 84; ii) Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (1) LLN 39 (SC) : 1999 (7) SCC 739; iii) S.B.I and others v. Arvind K.Shukla, 2001 (3) CTC 765 (SC) : CDJ 2001 SC 2517; iv) SBI and others v. K.P.Narayanan Kutty, 2003 (1) LLN 839 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 449; v) Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (3) LLN 137 (SC) : 2006 (4) SCC 153; vi) Punjab National Bank v. K.K.Verma, 2010 (13) SCC 494; and
vii)V.Arulkumar v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Board of Directors, 2010 (3) LLN 764.
"12. In service jurisprudence, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry or to appoint an Inquiry officer to look into the matter and to submit his report. In case, inquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority, opportunity of hearing has to be given by him to the delinquent. In case, an Inquiry Officer is appointed and he submits a report, there are two courses open to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority in his discretion may accept the report. In case the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and proposes to arrive at a different conclusion, he should indicate the tentative reasons to the delinquent. The delinquent should be given an opportunity to submit his version with respect to the tentative findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. There is a laudable purpose in giving such an opportunity. It would enable the delinquent to plead and convince the Disciplinary Authority to accept the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer rather than to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, this is a very valuable right given to the employee. The Courts have time and again indicated the importance of this right."
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Hence, the order of the third respondent is violative of
principles of natural justice and the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Mohandas' case (supra).
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
svki
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Commercical Taxes Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Madurai Division, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.Karthik Rajan, Advocate Sr 63125
+1cc to Special Govt. Pleader (Taxes), SR 63234
BUR(CO)
km/21.1.
W.P.No.11733 of 2007
(O.A.No.6349 of 2002)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a punishment order is valid when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with an Inquiry Officer's finding of no loss without hearing the employee.
Whether the requirement of natural justice is violated when an employee is not given an opportunity to respond to differing views of the Disciplinary Authority.
Whether to allow the writ petition and quash orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appellate officers.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. Mohandas v. State Bank of IndiaFollowed¶19
2012 (1) LLN 589 (DB) (Mad.) M.Mohandas v. State Bank of India
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari MisraFollowed¶24
1998 (2) CTC 742 (SC) Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of MaharashtraFollowed¶24
1999 (7) SCC 739 Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra · Who else cites this
State Bank of India and others v. Arvind K. ShuklaFollowed¶24
2001 (3) CTC 765 (SC) S.B.I and others v. Arvind K. Shukla
State Bank of India and others v. K.P. Narayanan KuttyFollowed¶24
2003 (2) SCC 449 SBI and others v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty · Who else cites this
Ranjit Singh v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶24
2006 (4) SCC 153 Ranjit Singh v. Union of India · Who else cites this
Punjab National Bank v. K.K. VermaFollowed¶24
2010 (13) SCC 494 Punjab National Bank v. K.K. Verma · Who else cites this
V. Navaneethan
The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
D. Hariparanthaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
