Allowed

A.Pandian v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Dec 2014WP/12650/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary punishment order. The court held that when an inquiry officer clears charges, the disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment by recording differing views without first giving the employee an opportunity to be heard on those differences, violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner designated for 1998 promotion panel with notionals backdating and revised terminal benefits with arrears to be paid within eight weeks.

A.Pandian Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.12650 of 2007 (O.A.No.3927 of 2003)

¶6

A.Pandian ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Madras - 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
the Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Collector,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents

¶8

This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.3927 of 2003 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents resulting in the first respondent's impugned order G.O.(1D) 532 (Revenue/Ser 4-1/department) dated 03.12.2002 in confirming the order of the second respondent dated 6.12.2001 passed in Proc.Ser.III(4)/20442/01 and order of the third respondent dated 2.1.2001 passed in ROC.A5/67206/2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to include his name for the year 1998 panel to the post of Deputy Collector and consequently give him a paper promotion with effect from 1.1.1998 and pay all the attendant and backwages including monetary benefit and all other pension benefits etc with effect from the eligible date.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Renga Ramanujam

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Addl. Government Pleader

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner filed O.A.No.3927 of 2003. On abolition of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-

¶13

numbered as W.P.No.12650 of 2007.

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, I am not going into the merits of the case.

¶16

The petitioner was working as a Divisional Excise Officer, Ramanathapuram. He was issued with a charge memo dated 17.10.1998 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 31.01.2000 holding that the charges were not proved. 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 six months without cumulative effect, by an order dated 02.01.2001.

¶17

As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected on 06.12.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision before the first respondent. The first respondent, vide G.O.(ID)No.532 Revenue/Ser 4-1/Department, dated 03.12.2002 rejected the revision petition. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner has filed this Original Application.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the Enquiry officer held that charges were not proved, the Disciplinary Authority recorded a finding of guilt in the punishment order, without hearing the petitioner on his differed views from that of the Enquiry Officer.

¶19

The learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012 (1) LLN 589 (DB) (Mad.) [M.Mohandas v. State Bank of India, rep. by Deputy General Manager and another], wherein, the Division Bench after considering various judgments of the Apex Court has held that punishment order based on the differed views without notice is bad and illegal.

¶20

Admittedly, while passing the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority came to a different conclusion from that of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment. Before coming to such a different conclusion, the petitioner was not heard on the same.

¶21

When the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges were proved, the Disciplinary Authority can either accept or disagree with the findings. If the Disciplinary Authority accepts the findings, he shall furnish a copy of the said findings to the delinquent and after receipt of explanation thereon, the disciplinary authority can decide on the punishment. But in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case where the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not

¶22

proved and the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with such a finding, it is incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to record his dissent views and hear the views of the delinquent employee on his differed views before imposing the punishment. But the said procedure is not followed.

¶23

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:-

¶24

i) Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra,

¶25

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,

¶26

2010 (13) SCC 494; and

¶27

vii)V.Arulkumar v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Board of Directors, 2010 (3) LLN 764.

¶28

It is also useful to extract Paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench :-

¶29

"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

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such an opportunity. It would enable the delinquent

¶31

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."

¶32

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).

¶33

For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands
allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Because of the
punishment, the petitioner was not included in the panel of the
year 1998-99 for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. Since
the punishment order is quashed, I am of the view that he shall be
included in the panel and he shall be promoted notionally from the
date on which, his immediate junior was promoted as Deputy
Collector. Accordingly, he shall be given revised terminal benefits
with arrears, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Records)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Madras - 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
the Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Collector,
Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
1 CC to Mr.R.Renga Ramanujam, Advocate SR.No. 60582
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 60814
W.P.No.12650 of 2007
(O.A.No.3927 of 2003)
MG (CO)
PSI (12.01.2015)

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Pandian v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pandian v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Thilayarkarasi Vs the Dy Inspector General of

R. Sathyanarayana Vs the Government of India

C.Deivendran Vs the Commissioner

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Joint Commissioner

D.Chitra Devi Vs the Special Commissioner and

G.Mary Stellabai Vs the District Elementary