This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging the stoppage of increment punishment imposed on a Village Administrative Officer (VAO). The Court held the punishment was not disproportionate and the procedures followed were legal.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2010
R.Vasantha
... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to the Government
Revenue Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
2.The Additional Director,
Revenue Administration,
Personnel Management and Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
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 proceedings in Na.Ka.No.13081/03/8I, dated 23.02.2005, on the file of the fourth respondent confirmed in Na.Ka.No.21779/06B1, dated 05.12.2006 on the file of the third respondent confirmed in Na.Ka.No.Pani.5(3)/12404/07, dated 02.04.2008 on the file of the second respondent confirmed in the impugned Government Order Number:567, dated 10.12.2009 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to grant the stopped increment.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan
Government Advocate
1/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
ORDER
The writ petition on hand is filed challenging the order imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment on the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect. The original order of punishment was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, which was confirmed by the appellate authorities and thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner was holding the post of VAO at Sethur Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. On account of certain allegations raised against the writ petitioner, she was placed under suspension, in proceeding, dated 17.12.2003. A charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in proceeding, dated 24.02.2004. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are as under:-
“Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ; 1&
bre;Jiw fpuhkj;jpy; ej;jk; tl;lhl;rpah; 12.12.2003Mk; njjp ,ut[ rPikf;fUnty kuf; Fr;rpfis Vw;wp te;j yhhpia nrhjidapl;lnghJ yhhp Xl;Leh;> bre;Jiw fpuhk eph;thf mYtyh; tHq;fpa rhd;wpid itj;jpUe;jhh;. mr;rhd;wpy; bre;Jiw fpuhkk; khkuj;Jg;gl;oia nrh;e;j Mz;of;ffhis kidtp rpd;dk;khs; vd;gtUf;Fr; brhe;jkhd gl;lh g[Q ;ir g[y vz; 545-y; cs;s ntypf; fUit tpwFfis tpwFf;fhf btl;or; bry;tjhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;L bre;Jiw fpuhk eph;thf mYtyuhy; 12.12.2003 vd njjpapl;L ifbahg;gkplg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,k;khjphpahd rhd;wpid tHq;f fpuhk
eph;thf mYtyUf;F mjpfhuk; fpilahJ. ,r;rhd;Wfs; tUtha; Ma;th; mstpy; kl;Lnk nkbyhg;gk; bra;J tHq;fg;glntz;Lk;. vdnt jpUkjp Mh;.tre;jh vd;gth; jdJ mjpfhu tuk;gpid kPwp rhd;W tHq;fpa [s ;shh;.
Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ; 2 &
ej;jk; tl;lk;> bre;Jiw fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s gy;ntW g[yq;fspy; rK:f tpnuhjpfshy; gytif kuq;fs; btl;of; flj;jt [k ; mjpfhu tuk;ig kPwp jd;dpr;irahf kuq;fs; bfhz;L bry;tjw;F ,izg;gpy; fz;l tpgug;go $dthp 2003 brg;lk;gh; 2003 tiu 21 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (,Ugj;jpbahd;W) rhd;W tHq;fpaJ.
2/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
Fw ;wr ;rhl ;L vz ; 3&
ej;jk; tl;lk;> bre;Jiw fpuhkk;> g[y vz; 702/1 g[wk;g [fypy; 12.11.2003> 13.11.2003 kw;Wk; 14.11.2003 Mfpa njjpfspy; kuq;fs; btl;lg;gl;lij mwpe;Jk; ej;jk; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F jfty; bjhptpf;fhky; ,Ue;J muRf;F tUtha; ,Hg;g [ vw;gl fhuzkha; , Ue;jJ.”
3.A Perusal of the charge memorandum reveals that annexure-2 provides the statement of allegations and imputations of misconduct and annexure-3 denotes the list of documents relied on by the disciplinary authority for establishing the charges against the writ petitioner.
4.The writ petitioner submitted his written explanation denying the allegations on 27.02.2004. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority ordered for domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and the writ petitioner also had participated in the process of enquiry. The writ petitioner defended before the first respondent by stating that on 12.12.2003, the Tahsildar, while conducting night patrolling duty, conducted vehicle checkup and found that one Chinnammal W/o. Andikalai is the owner of the land, who in turn, informed that the Village Administrative Officer issued a certificate permitting her to take velikaruvai trees. As far as the Seemaikaruvai trees are concerned, the pattadars of the land can take the same for their personal usage and for that purposes, certificate can be issued and even in that certificate, the Revenue Inspector has to approve the said certificate for the purpose of execution of the said certificate. Therefore, the writ petitioner set out the defence by stating that she was not aware of the procedures for getting an approval from the Revenue Inspector in the certificate. The ignorance of the procedures were pleaded by the writ petitioner before the Enquiry Officer.
5.The findings of the Enquiry Officer reveals that the writ petitioner was serving as Village Karnam for about 15 years prior to her appointment as VAO and therefore, she cannot plead any ignorance of the procedures to be followed in the matter of issuing certificates. When the writ petitioner was working as Karnam for more than 15 years and therefore selected and appointed as VAO, she knows about the complete procedures in this regard. The petitioner was an experienced employee both in the cadre of Village Karnam as well as the Village Administrative Officer. The Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion that the defence cannot be accepted and such an ignorance cannot be held in favour of the delinquent officer and accordingly, held that charge No.1 is proved against the writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner. As far as the second charge is concerned, the Enquiry
3/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
Officer made a finding that the Village Administrative Officer has to recommend for cutting of trees in respect of patta lands. However, the Forest Range Officer has to grant permission for doing this. The Enquiry Officer found that the permission of the higher officials are necessary and without permission of the higher officials, the Village Administrative Officer cannot recommend the case, even in respect of patta lands. Accordingly, he arrived at a conclusion that charge No.2 against the writ petitioner also was proved. As far as charge No.3 is concerned, the said charge is a consequential one and on account of such irregularity, the Government exchequer had sustained financial loss. Charge No.4 is the general charge stating that the irregularity committed by the Village Administrative Officer caused dis-reputation amongst the public.
6.The disciplinary authority considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accepted the said findings and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer who in turn confirmed the order of punishment in proceeding, dated 05.12.2006. The Revenue Divisional Officer/first appellate authority also considered the case and independently, he has elaborately considered the charges as well as the grounds of appeals raised by the writ petitioner and accordingly, he arrived a conclusion and confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Against the said orders of original authority and the first appellate authority, the writ petitioner preferred further appeal to the Commissioner for Revenue Administration. The Commissioner for Revenue Administration by way of delegation of power directed the Additional Commissioner to decide the second appeal on merits. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue Administration) considered the grounds of appeal filed by the writ petitioner and passed an order in proceeding, dated 02.04.2008, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. A Perusal of the second appellate order reveals that the Additional Commissioner also considered the facts and circumstances as well as the grounds raised by the writ petitioner in the appeal. The order is a speaking order and the case as well as the grounds raised by the writ petitioner were considered by the second appellate authority also. Finally, the writ petitioner approached the Government by way of revision. The Government also rejected the appeal in G.O.(D)No.567, Revenue Department, dated 10.12.2009.
7.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the charges are flimsy and far beyond the truth. The writ petitioner was working for a long period with clean records of service. She had not committed any irregularity by issuing a false certificate in favour of any person. The owner of the land ought to have obtained proper approval from the revenue inspector concerned. It is not the fault of the writ petitioner and therefore, she cannot be penalised on account of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mistake committed by the owner of the land in getting approval from
4/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
the revenue inspector concerned. The charges 1 and 2 itself are misconceived. There is no evidences to establish that the petitioner helped any antisocial elements or abused her position as VAO. Even with reference to charge No.3, the Revenue Inspector was not examined. The findings of the disciplinary authority that the writ petitioner failed to send any report to the Tahsildar through Revenue Inspector is factually incorrect and very much contrary to the Enquiry Officer. No revenue loss had been proved before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, the decision for imposing the punishment was arrived by the original authority based on certain irrelevant considerations and therefore, the orders of punishment confirmed by the higher officials are to be set aside.
8.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is that charges are vague and the evidences submitted by the departments for establishing the charges are insufficient and the opportunity granted to the writ petitioner to defend her case is insufficient and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer, while functioning as a quasi judicial authority, is expected to act in a neutral manner and to provide opportunity to the delinquent officials. The appellate authority also had not appreciated the facts and circumstances as well as the documents produced by the writ petitioner. For all these reasons, the writ petition is to be allowed.
9.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that all the authorities including the disciplinary authorities had independently considered the merits and demerits of the case of the writ petitioner and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Thus, the authorities themselves have taken a lenient view and therefore, no further consideration is required by this Court in this writ petition. It is contended that the writ petitioner was working as Village Karnam for more than 15 years and thereafter, selected and appointed as VAO. She was an experienced VAO and she knows about the procedures to be followed and the powers, responsibilities and duties attached to the post of VAO. Therefore, her contention, that she was not aware of the procedures to be followed for the purpose of issuing certificate, cannot be accepted and the authorities also rightly not accepted the said contention. Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any valid grounds for the purpose of setting aside the order of punishment.
10.Considering the arguments and counter arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the powers of review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not to reverse the decision taken by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ competent authorities. The High Court is bound to ascertain whether
5/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
the process and the procedures through which, the decision is arrived by the competent authorities is in accordance with law and in consonance with the legal principles. Thus, the decision itself cannot be questioned. However, the decision can be questioned, on exceptional circumstances, where such decision is shocking to the conscious of the Court.
11.The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorities as well as the appellate authorities can be modified in rare circumstances by the High Court in a writ petition. If the punishment is not in proportionate with the gravity of the charges or shocking the conscious, then alone such an exercise can be done by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in all other circumstances, the High Court has to ensure that the processes, through which, the decision is taken by the competent authorities are proper and in consonance with the legal principles.
12.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 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 her 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.
13.In the present writ petition, the charge memo was issued. The charge memorandum, issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is in consonance with the procedures to be followed under the Rules. The writ petitioner submitted her explanation denying the charges. The Enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer provided adequate opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend her case. The records were perused. The Enquiry Officer has given a clear finding with reference to each charge. The reason for arriving a conclusion is also categorically stated in the enquiry report. Thus, there is no perversity as such on the part of the disciplinary authority in accepting the findings of the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, on acceptance of the findings, has imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Undoubtedly, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would affect the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner was a senior VAO and performed his duties as Karnam for more than 15 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years in the village and considering all those circumstances and
6/7
W.P.(MD).No.6354 of 2010
further considering the financial loss caused to the State exchequer, the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed.
14.This Court is of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner cannot be construed as disproportionate with reference to the charges established against the writ petitioner and the speaking orders passed by the respondents.
15.The first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority considered the facts independently as well as the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. This being the factum, this Court do not find any acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner and the procedures followed are also in consonance with the rules in force. Thus, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Assistant Registrar (P & A)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Additional Director,
Revenue Administration, Personnel Management and Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District Collectorate Building, Dindigul District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.
W.P.(MD).No. 6354 of 2010
14.10.2020
sji
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SDS (29.10.2020) 7P-5C
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the punishment of stoppage of increment imposed on a senior VAO was disproportionate and shocking to the conscience of the Court.
Whether the procedure followed in the domestic enquiry and disciplinary proceedings conformed to the principles of natural justice and applicable rules.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Vasantha
The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Additional Director, Revenue Administration
The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
