Jeevanandam Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Jeevanandam Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned orders quashed: GO(D) No.76 dated 09.04.2021 (stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect) and G.O.(D).No.218 dated 19.12.2022 confirming it; writ petition allowed; connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P.No.4710 of 2023) closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the fourth respondent's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's finding on Charge No.8, without recording tentative reasons and without giving the petitioner notice or an opportunity of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the punishment order. +3 more

Court's answer

Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, it must, before recording its own findings, record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent, conveying the enquiry report containing the findings.

Ratio / Principle

In the present case, the disciplinary authority gave no reason while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's conclusion on Charge No.8 and served no notice on the petitioner before disagreeing, which is a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

Key takeaways

Since the Department examined no witness and only marked documents, and it is mandatory to examine witnesses when the delinquent denies the charges, mere marking of documents is insufficient; non-examination of witnesses is fatal and Charges 1 to 7 cannot be said to be proved against the delinquent.ratio¶84
The order passed by the fourth respondent is a non-speaking order passed without applying mind, and the third respondent's order confirming it is likewise non-speaking, mechanically passed after mere narration of charges without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.ratio¶117

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Disciplinary enquiry - HR & CE Department - Executive Officer Grade I, holding additional charge of sub-temple Angalamman Thirukoil, leased out idle temple lands (6.91 acres in S.No.44/2 and 8.53 acres in S.No.412) to generate income; no misappropriation of rental amounts alleged. Enquiry Officer (report dated 23.11.2017) held Charges 1-7 proved and Charge No.8 not proved; the disciplinary authority disagreed on Charge No.8 without recording tentative reasons or serving notice/giving opportunity of hearing - clear violation of principles of natural justice. Department examined no witness, only marked documents; non-examination of witnesses is fatal and the charges cannot be said to be proved. Final punishment order (GO(D) No.76 dated 09.04.2021, stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect) and the revisional confirmation (G.O.(D).No.218 dated 19.12.2022) were non-speaking orders passed without applying mind. Proceedings further tainted by inordinate, unexplained delay (delinquency 2009-2010; charge memo 2014; enquiry report 2017; final order about four years later), deferring promotions. Relying on Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd, (2006) 9 SCC 440 and State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236, the Madras High Court quashed both orders and allowed the writ petition under Article 226, closing the connected miscellaneous petition, with no costs.

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the fourth respondent's disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's finding on Charge No.8, without recording tentative reasons and without giving the petitioner notice or an opportunity of hearing, violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the punishment order.¶34
The court held
Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, it must, before recording its own findings, record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent, conveying the enquiry report containing the findings.ratio¶102
2.
Whether Charges 1 to 7 can be said to be proved when the Department examined no witness and only produced/marked documents.¶80
The court held
Since the Department examined no witness and only marked documents, and it is mandatory to examine witnesses when the delinquent denies the charges, mere marking of documents is insufficient; non-examination of witnesses is fatal and Charges 1 to 7 cannot be said to be proved against the delinquent.ratio¶84
3.
Whether the final order of the fourth respondent and the revisional confirmation by the third respondent are non-speaking orders passed mechanically without applying mind or considering the petitioner's explanation and grounds.¶34
The court held
The order passed by the fourth respondent is a non-speaking order passed without applying mind, and the third respondent's order confirming it is likewise non-speaking, mechanically passed after mere narration of charges without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner.ratio¶117
4.
Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings (alleged delinquency of 2009-2010, charge memo in 2014, enquiry report in 2017, final order about four years after the enquiry report) vitiates the proceedings.¶107
The court held
The disciplinary proceedings suffered inordinate delay: the alleged delinquency was of 2009-2010, charges were issued only in 2014, the enquiry report came only in 2017, and the final order was passed about four years after receipt of the enquiry report, deferring the petitioner's promotions for many years.ratio¶107