Allowed

S.P.Thiyagarajan v. The Director of Horticulture and Plantation crops

Madras HC21 Mar 2022WP/3263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras held that a disciplinary punishment order lacking reasons and independent application of mind violates natural justice and mandatory rules. The impugned non-speaking order intimidating recovery and punishment was quashed and remitted for a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and remitted to the respondent to consider afresh and pass a reasoned order within 12 weeks.

S.P.Thiyagarajan Vs The Director of Horticulture and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.3.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.NO.3263 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO.3396 OF 2022

S.P.Thiyagarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Director of Horticulture And Plantation Crops, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer :

¶11

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide his proceedings in Se.Mu. No. ONaPe3 / 8779 / 2020 dated 01.02.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan, A.A.G. Assisted by Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, G.A.

¶13

The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Horticulture Officer on 6.10.1986 and presently he is working at the office of Assistant Director Horticulture, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District. During inspection conducted by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sivagangai, they found some discrepancies thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.27,12,997/for the reason of deficiencies in fruit plants and grafted plants and based on the aforesaid allegation, charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted and based on the report of the enquiry officer, punishment order has

¶14

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

¶15

been passed imposing punishment as well as recovery.

¶16

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court by alleging that the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation before the enquiry officer. The respondent without considering the said explanation, simply accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment to the petitioner.

¶17

The writ petition came up before this Court for admission, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent on instruction would submit that the enquiry was held as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules.

¶18

This Court in the case of R.Kannan Vs. The Chairman, Transport Corporation Board, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and another [W.P.No.26310 of 2009 dated 9.12.2021] while deciding the identical issue (by me) has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and held as under:

¶19

''7. This Court in 2018(2) CWC 580 (R. Bagavathi Chandran Vs. Inspector General of Registration,O/o. the Registration Department), while considering the scope and ambit of Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, has held as under:

¶20

“18. Taking into account the principles mentioned in the aforesaid Judgments, it would clearly indicate that even an Administrative Authority, who is entrusted with the task of passing Order in Disciplinary Proceedings, must have recorded reasons for come to such conclusion to inflict the punishment on the delinquent and if such reasons are not recorded by the said authority, certainly, the Order passed by the authority shall be vitiated. If we applied the aforesaid parameters and principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case especially in the context of Para 6 of the impugned Order, as the said Para alone gives reasons in three lines by the First Respondent to come to the conclusion to inflict the maximum punishment of removal of service against the petitioner, certainly it would disclose that the impugned order Order does not meet the aforesaid parameters or principle laid down in the said Judgments and also it does not

¶21

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

¶22

meet the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

¶23

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, on the ground of nonrecording of reasons by the Disciplinary Authority independently by applying the mind of the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned Order of Punishment, is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned Order, since it is vitiated for the said reasons alone is liable to be quashed.

¶24

In the result, the impugned Order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the First Respondent for reconsideration. While making reconsideration, the First Respondent shall apply his mind independently and record his own reasoning in each of the charges framed against the Petitioner as well as the defence given by the petitioner and also the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, in that regard and pass Orders thereon. It is made clear that this Court, while quashing the impugned Order, does not express any opinion about the merits of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. The impugned Order is quashed only on the ground of non-disclosure of reasoning in the impugned Order itself as has been discussed above.”

¶25

In the instant case, on perusal of the order passed by the second respondent, based on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed two separate orders viz., order imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect and order imposing recovery of Rs.48,600/- being the 50% of the recovery proposed in the memo, dated 13.5.2004 from the petitioner. However, in the punishment order passed by the respondent, there was no discussion nor any reason assigned for inflicting punishment against the petitioner. In the absence of any reason to pass such punishment order against the petitioner, the respondent mechanically passed the cryptic order by accepting the report of the enquiry officer which is nothing but a non speaking order. The Appellate Authority also simply confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.Thus, the Appellate Authority also

¶26

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

¶27

failed to consider the appeal independently and without applying his mind rejected the appeal.

¶28

In yet another decision in R.Bagavathi Chandran vs. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High road, Chennai – 28 and another [W.P.(MD) No.8832 of 2018 dated 27.4.2018] this Court has held as under:

¶29

''10. I have gone through the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the first respondent,wherein, upto para 5, the charge framed against the petitioner as well as the defence/ explanation given by the petitioner/delinquent has been narrated. Also enquiry officer's report has been given in the said narration. After narrating the contents of the charge as well as the defence/ explanation given by the petitioner upto para 5 of the impugned order, the first respondent has given his reason as he accepts the enquiry officer's report and rejects the defence given by the delinquent/petitioner at paras 6 and 7, which read thus:

¶30

“6) jdpah; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;L. jdpahpd; tpsf;fk;. tprhuiz mYtyhpd; mwpf;if. jdpauJ nky;tpsf;fk; kw;Wk; neh;Kf tprhuizapd;nghJ jdpah; mspj;j thf;FK:yk; Mfpad bjhlh;g[ila gjpt[Wf;fSld; ftdkhfg; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;lJ/

¶31

“Inquiry Officer findings are accepted and I am hereby awarding the punishment of dismissal from service as the land in question is a government land.

¶32

,t;thidapd; kPJ nky;KiwaPL VJkpUg;gpd; Miz bgwg;gl;l ehspypUe;J 2 khj';fSf;Fs; gpujpapy; muRf;F nky;KiwaPl;L kDtpid chpa tHpKiwahf mDg;gyhk;/

¶33

11.On perusal of the aforesaid reasoning or findings given by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the first respondent at paras 6 and 7, one can easily say that the disciplinary authority has not independently applied his mind and has not given any independent reasons, after having assessed the charge as well as defence taken by the delinquent, before come to the conclusion that the enquiry officer's report can be accepted.

¶34

12.In this regard, as has been rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Rule 18(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules can very well be pressed into service. To

¶35

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

¶36

appreciate the said rule, it is extracted herein:

¶37

“All orders of punishment shall also state the grounds on which they are passed and shall be communicated in writing to the person against whom they are passed”

¶38

''13.The aforesaid Rule has clearly mandated that all orders of punishment shall also state grounds on which they are passed and shall be communicated in writing to the person, against whom they are passed.

¶39

14.......

¶40

15.........

¶41

16.The yet another decision in (2010) 7 MLJ 48 – P.Anthony Rajamani V. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, cited supra, as relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner can also be taken note of hearin at this juncture. In the said decision, the learned Judge of this Court has held as follows:

¶42

“6. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in the latest Judgment reported in G.Vallikumari vs. Andhra Education Society and others (2010 2 SCC 497) that reasons must be given for accepting or rejecting the claim of an individual. In Para 19 it was stated as follows:

¶43

"19. In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations levelled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(d)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi-judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognised facets of the

¶44

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

¶45

rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned."

¶46

As per the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is clear that when the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order, removing the petitioner from service without recording reasons and by simply referring to findings of enquiry officer, it is not sustainable. The order is therefore violative of the statutory rules and principles of natural justices and it is not sustainable.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi(2008 11 SCC 205) wherein the decision reported in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar (2003 11 SCC 519) was reported. In Para 11, it was held as follows:-

¶48

"11. "8. .... Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;....".

¶49

The above Supreme Court Judgment would clearly indicate that there should be reasoning for any order so as to enable the claimant to know as to and on what basis his contention was not accepted.

¶50

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the two ruling of this Court reported in V.P.Chellappa v. Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B. Dharmapuri5 and others (2010 1 MLJ 714) wherein it was held that the order passed by the Appellate Authority should indicate application of mind and reasoning however brief they may be, should be incorporated in the Order, which admittedly is lacking in this case. Paras 8 and 9 are extracted hereunder:

¶51

"8. It is well settled that the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities are the fact finding authorities and therefore, when the right of appeal is a

¶52

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

¶53

substantive right, the appellate authority ought to have passed a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised in the appeal. Atleast the appellate authority, in the interest of justice, should have been indicated his mind while disposing of the statutory appeal. Consideration of the factors by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities are conspicuously absent in the impugned orders. After recording the sequence of events from the date of formulation of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority, in his three line order, has simply concluded that the petitioner had committed the act of misconduct. In his order, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded as follows:

¶54

"On perusal of the representation and all connected records, it is found that Thiru.V.P.Chellappa has not put forth any fresh points requiring consideration. Hence, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Thiru.V.P.Chellappa, Junior Engineer, should be awarded with punishment for the proven charges."

¶55

There is absolutely no discussion on any one of the points raised by the writ petitioner regarding the correctness of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer nor there is any discussion regarding impropriety in the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry. Perusal of the appellate order also does not indicate as to whether he had applied his mind to the appeal memorandum, dated 25.01.2001, excepting to state that no fresh points have been raised."

¶56

On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent, it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph of the order which reads as follows:

¶57

",e;neh;t[ bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs;. gpiH mYtyhpd; tpsf;fk;. tprhuiz mwpf;if. tprhuiz mYtyhpd; fz;lwpjy;fs; kPjhd gpiHahshpd; TLjy; tpsf;fk;. njhl;lf;fiy Jiz ,af;Feh;. rptf';if Fwpg;g[iu kw;Wk; rpwg;g[ Ma;t[ FGtpd; mwpf;if Mfpait ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;ag;gl;ld/ tprhuiz mwpf;if Vw;fg;gLfpwJ/ jpU/v!;/gp/jpahfuh$d; njhl;lf;fiy mYtyh; kPJ epUgzkhd Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F mz;zhhpd; vjph;tUk; Cjpa

¶58

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

¶59

cah;tpid jpuz;l gadpd;wp epWj;jk; (Stoppage of increment for one year without cummulative effect) vDk; jz;lid tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; jdpauhy;Vw;gl;l murpHg;g[ bjhif U:/27 ,12,997/-- (U:gha; , Ugj;njG ,yl;rj;J gd;dpuz;lhapuj;J bjhs;shapuj;J bjhd;Dw;nwG kl;Lk;) -id gpg;uthp 2022 khjk; Kjy; $dthp 2024 Koa gpujpkhjk; U:/ 60,000/-- (U:gha; mWgjhapuk; kl;Lk;) tPjk; jdpahpd; Cjpaj;jpy; gpoj;jk; bra;at[k; kPjk; bjhif U:/12 ,72,997/-(U:gha; gd;dpuz;L ,yl;rj;J vGgj;jpuz;lh?apuj;J bjhs;shapuj;J bjhd;Dw;W VG kl;Lk;) jdpaupd; gzpf;bfhil (DCRG)-apy; gpoj;jk; bra;at[k; ,jd; K:yk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ ,t;t[j;jputpd; nky; jdpah; nky;KiwaPL bra;a tpUk;gpdhy; ,t;thiz fpilf;fg;bgw;w ehspypUe;J 60 ehl;fSf;Fs; muRf;F nky;KiwaPL bra;ayhk;/”

¶60

In the light of the decisions cited supra, this Court come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the respondent is cryptic and non speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the same is remitted to the respondent to consider afresh and pass appropriate and reasoned orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶61