The High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by the State Government against a Single Judge order which had set aside a two-year stoppage of increment punishment imposed on a Superintendent. The appeal lacked merit as it was moot given the lower court's clear finding. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was also 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.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.2718 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.17698 of 2021
v.
L.Girinivasan .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 28.10.2020 made in W.P.No.4745 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
Page 1/7
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
For Appellants : Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG Assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.N. Ravichandran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.4745 of 2015, the respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the above Writ Appeal.
2. The respondent filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st appellant in connection with the orders dated 20.08.2013 and 18.11.2014 and directing the respondents to give all the monetary and services benefits with effect from the date of promotion given to his juniors.
3.1 It is the case of the respondent-writ petitioner that he was
selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by way of
Page 2/7
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
Compassionate Appointment and joined service in the year 1981 and subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1994 and as Superintendent in the year 2001. He joined as Superintendent in the office of District Project Coordinator, Vellore on 01.02.2008 and worked in the said office till 28.05.2008. Thereafter, he was transferred as Superintendent in the office of Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. Based on the allegations published in the newspaper, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 01.12.2008, directing to take disciplinary action under Rule 9(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules against the respondent-writ petitioner along with other five officers, who were involved in misappropriation relating to disbursement of Travelling Allowances to the Teacher Trainee in the office of the District Project Coordinator, Vellore District. Pursuant to the order of the Government, the 2 nd appellant, by his proceedings dated 18.02.2008, framed charges against the respondent-writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Rules by framing five charges against the individuals. The charges against the respondent-writ petitioner was that the Travelling Allowances statement was not approved by the District Project Coordinator and the
Page 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
acknowledgements were not obtained from the concerned teachers who
received money.
3.2 The respondent-writ petitioner contended that he was n ot responsible for the procedure in disbursement of the Travelling Allowance to the Teachers concerned, and he had only followed the instructions of his Superiors, i.e., the Superintendent in the office of the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. The respondent-writ petitioner gave his explanation to the charges framed against him, however, finding not satisfied, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. However, in the enquiry, there was neither oral evidence nor any document was marked on the side of the appellants.
3.3 The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.05.2011 holding that the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of charges. Pursuant to th report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a further show cause notice dated 30.06.2011 was issued annexing copy of the Enquiry Report and the respondent-writ petitioner was directed to submit his
Page 4/7
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
explanation. Accordingly, the respondent-writ petitioner s ubmitted his explanation on 18.07.2011. The 1st appellant, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent-writ petitioner, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect, by his order dated 20.08.2013. The Review Petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was also rejected by the 1 st appellant.
the appellants have neither let in oral evidence nor produced any documents to prove the charges framed against the respondent-writ petitioner. On a perusal of the Enquiry Report also, it is clear that the appellants did not produce any oral or documentary evidences at the time of enquiry. In spite of the failure committed by the appellants in letting in oral or documentary evidences, the Enquiry Officer, erroneously found the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of all charges. In other words, the Enquiry Officer only based on the charges framed against the respondent-writ petitioner, without any corroborative evidence, found the
Page 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
respondent-writ petitioner guilty of all the charges. The 1st appellant based on the said report, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence let in by the appellants, the Enquiry Officer should not have found the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of the charges and also the 1st appellant should not have imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect.
5. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly set aside the impugned order passed by the appellants 1 and 2. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
02.12.2021
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Rj
Page 6/7
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
M. DURAISWAMY, J. and J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Rj
W.A.No.2718 of 2021 and C.M.P. No.17698 of 2021
02.12.2021
Page 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ appeal in a disciplinary case where the lower court had found the departmental enquiry defective due to l
Whether the writ appeal filed by the State Department against the set aside of the punishment order has any merit.
The Govt. of Tamilnadu
The Director of School Education
Joint Director (Personnel)
L.Girinivasan
M.DURAISWAMY
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
