Dismissed

Ramamoorthy v. the Collector

Madras HC3 Nov 2020WP(MD)/17078/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a departmental punishment of stoppage of increment. The petitioner, acquitted in a criminal case, argued for exoneration. The Court held that criminal and departmental proceedings are independent, noting the standard of proof differs. It found no infirmity in the procedure and refused interference.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition challenging the stoppage of increment punishment was dismissed.

Ramamoorthy Vs the Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

Ramamoorthy

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Commissioner,

¶9

Adi Dravider Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶10

3.The District Adi Dravider Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6/48817/2002, dated 24.06.2004 and consequent appeal order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.Tha:2/24120/2003, dated 05.12.2005 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore all increment benefits of the petitioner that was withheld by the above impugned orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sasikumar

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.P.Mahendran

¶15

Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The order of punishment imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

1/7

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶21

2.The writ petitioner is working as Cook at Government ADW Boys Hostel, Uthiragosamangai in Ramanathapuram District. The petitioner was placed under suspension on initiation of disciplinary proceedings. A criminal case was also registered against the writ petitioner. The departmental disciplinary proceedings were continued by issuing a charge memorandum and an enquiry was conducted by the competent authorities. Finally, the disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect.

¶22

3.The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment mainly on the ground that he was acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the said appeal was also rejected and the order of the original authority was confirmed. The writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.4898 of 2009 and subsequently, the said writ petition was withdrawn without any liberty. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed challenging the punishment order. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the charges framed both in the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal case are one and the same and the criminal Court acquitted the writ petitioner from the criminal case and therefore, he must be exonerated from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Relying on the order of acquittal granted by the criminal Court, the order of punishment is challenged and the petitioner has stated that the punishment is liable to be set aside.

¶23

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the contention by stating that the writ petition itself is highly belated. The earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and subsequently it was withdrawn by the writ petitioner on 16.07.2012. The order of punishment was imposed in proceeding, dated 24.06.2004 and the appeal was rejected by the second

¶24

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

¶25

2/7

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶27

respondent on 05.12.2005. Thus, the first writ petition itself was filed after a lapse of four years from the date of appellate order. The present writ petition is filed after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition. In view of the fact that the first writ petition itself was withdrawn, the present writ petition has also to be dismissed.

¶28

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader is of the opinion that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner are grievous in nature. The Enquiry Officer provided an opportunity while conducting the enquiry and arrived at a finding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. Based on the proved charges, the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect was passed by the authorities concerned and the said punishment was confirmed by the appellate authority. This being the factum, the writ petitioner has not raised any acceptable legal ground for the purpose of considering the relief.

¶29

6.This Court is of the considered opinion that as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the first writ petition itself was filed during the year 2009 after a lapse of about four years from the date of passing of the appellate order. Secondly, the ground raised is that the departmental disciplinary proceedings ought to be set aside, in view of the fact that the criminal case ended with an order of acquittal.

¶30

7.In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the disciplinary authorities are concerned, the standard of proof required is not akin to that of the standard of proof required in a criminal case or in a civil trial. Preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish the public servants under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Thus, it is not necessary that the high standard of proof is required for the purpose of establishing a misconduct of indiscipline under the Discipline and

¶31

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

¶32

3/7

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶34

Appeal Rules as far as the public servants are concerned. The allegations set out in the charge memo, the materials available on record and consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as by the Enquiry Officers are sufficient to arrive a conclusion that the punishment imposed on him is in accordance with the law or not. Of course, the procedures, through which, such a decision is taken are also to be considered by the Court.

¶35

8.In the present writ petition, the charge memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegations against the writ petitioner are that he had misbehaved with the women staff member and attempted to rape her. The charges are extracted hereunder:-

¶36

“Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ;-1

¶37

rj;jpuf;Fo muR Mjpjpuhtplh; ey khzth; tpLjpapy; Typ ntiy bra;a jpUkjp.fhe;jp vd;gtuhy; miHj;J tug;gl ;l bry;tp.byl;Rkp vd;gtiu tpLjpapd; rikayuhfpa> Fw;wk ; rhl;lg ;gl ;l mYtyh; vz;-2> ePq;fs ; fhtyh; jpU.rj;jparPyDld; nrh;e ;J fw;gHpf;f Kad;wJ.

¶38

Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ;-2

¶39

bry;tp.byl;Rkp kw;Wk ; mtUila jhahh; fyh vd;w fsQ;rpak; Mfpa ,UtUk; Fw;wr ;rhl;L 1-y; Fwpg;glg;gl ;l rk;gtk; fhuzkhf mtkhdk; jhq;fhky; 23.07.1998 md;W ,ut[ tp\k; mUe;jp jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhz;ljw ;F fhuzfh;j ;jhthf ,Ue;jJ.

¶40

Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ;-3

¶41

nkw;Fwpj;j bray;fspd; fhuzkhf> muRg; gzpahsh;fSf;bfd tFf;fg ;gl ;l bewpKiwapdpd;Wk ; ; jtwp> jtwhd elj;ijapy; <Lgl;lJ.”

¶42

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

¶43

4/7

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶45

9.The allegations are connected with the staff members of the department. When the allegations are connected with the co-staff members working in the same Department, then, there is no impediment for the department to conduct an enquiry independently. In certain circumstances, the disciplinary authority may not be in a position to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings. If the allegations are outside the purview of the department, for example, if the Government employee has involved in a murder case somewhere else, the department may not be in a position to conduct an enquiry. However, with reference to the allegations within the office premises or towards the staff members of the family outside the premises, departmental authorities can very well proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, conducted an enquiry independently, based on the evidence and documents available, take a decision and pass orders.

¶46

10.The scope of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, nature of misconduct and the disciplinary aspects can never be compared with the criminal proceedings initiated by the police. The departmental disciplinary proceedings are independent and the criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to seek exoneration from conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The competent authority may impose a punishment even for commission of any indiscipline. However, such a punishment cannot be imposed in a criminal case. Thus, the nature of the disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different and the discipline to be maintained in the department can never be compared with the nature of the criminal proceedings to be conducted by the competent criminal Court of law. Therefore, the very ground raised by the writ petitioner that he is acquitted in a criminal case is of no avail to the petitioner to seek exoneration from the disciplinary proceedings or for quashing of the charges. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has considered the evidences and the documents placed by the department. The statement

¶47

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

¶48

5/7

¶49

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶50

of the officials were recorded. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the delinquent officials. Finally, the Enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are proved. Based on the proved charges, the punishment was imposed. It is pertinent to note that the charges are undoubtedly serious in nature. Though the criminal Court acquitted the petitioner, the department has not imposed a major penalty of termination or removal from services in respect of the proved charges. All such nature of allegations, normally major penalty is imposed. However, the competent authorities have taken a lenient view and imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect. This being the leniency already shown by the competent authorities, this Court cannot grant any further leniency in view of the fact the departmental disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedures contemplated and by affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner and there is no infirmity or perversity as such.

¶51

11.The review power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to scrutinize the procedures as well as the reasons for arriving at a decision by the competent authority. The decision itself cannot be questioned. However, if a decision arrived at by the authorities is shocking to the conscious of the Court, then, the Courts can interfere with the quantum of punishment and not otherwise. The quantum of punishment in normal circumstances are at the wisdom of the disciplinary authority and the judicial review require scrutiny of the procedures followed and the reasonableness in the matter of punishment imposed. Thus, Courts cannot normally interfered with the decision in a writ jurisdiction. The procedures followed and the reasonings given for arriving at such a decision ought to be considered and in the present case, the charge memo was issued. Enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry in a transparent manner by examining the witnesses and

¶52

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

¶53

6/7

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶55

considered the documents. This being the factum, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be construed as disproportionate with reference to the nature of proved charges. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

¶56

Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy //

¶57

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar (CS)

¶58

sji To

¶59

1.The Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶60

2.The Commissioner, Adi Dravider Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶61

3.The District Adi Dravider Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶62

W.P.(MD).No.17078 of 2012

¶63

03.11.2020

¶64

CK(CO) NR 11.11.2020 (7P:4C)

¶65

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

¶66

7/7

Ramamoorthy v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramamoorthy v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Velusamy, Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu

S. Vetriselvan Vs the Zonal Manager

S.O. Jeyaraj Vs the Deputy Commissionr

S. Murugan, Vs the Union of India

Sathyaseelan, Vs the Collector

D.Namburajan, Vs the Collector