V BASKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge memo dated 21.1.1997 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and it was served on him on 6.2.1997. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his written explanation on 19.2.1997 denying the charges. In and by the explanation dated 19.2.1997, the petitioner also sought for copies of certain documents. However, even before the copies of the documents sought for by him were furnished, an enquiry officer was appointed on 12.3.1997 and on 13.3.1997, the petitioner was permitted to peruse the records. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 27.3.1997 seeking further documents, but the same was not furnished to him. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry on 22.4.1997 in which three witnesses were examined. Ultimately, on 30.4.1997, the enquiry officer has submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. Thereafter, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 19.5.1997 requested the enquiry officer to summon the witnesses mentioned therein to appear once again for an oral enquiry and thereafter to submit his report. Therefore, oral enquiry was again conducted on 6.6.1997 and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.6.1997. In the second report also, the enquiry officer has stated that the charges are not proved. Thereafter, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 25.11.1997 called for additional further explanation from the petitioner only with reference to the report of the enquiry officer dated 27.6.1997. On 12.8.1997, the petitioner also submitted his written explanation requesting the disciplinary authority to accept the findings of the enquiry, but subsequently, the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 8.10.1997 held that the charge against the petitioner is proved and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, but the same was rejected on 28.1.1998. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 37504 of 2006.

(2.) The respondents have filed reply affidavit contending that the petitioner was examined before the enquiry officer and after complying with the formalities, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.4.1997 holding that the charge against the petitioner are not proved. On receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority requested the enquiry officer to summon three witnesses and examine them and thereafter submit his report. Accordingly, the enquiry officer again conducted enquiry on 6.6.1997 and submitted his report on 27.6.1997 once again holding that the charges are not proved. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued a notice dated 25.7.1997 calling upon the petitioner to submit his additional explanation, which was also submitted by him on 12.8.1997 in which he had specifically pleaded the disciplinary authority to accept the report of the enquiry officer and to exonerate him. Thereafter, the appellate authority, taking into consideration the further explanation made by the petitioner, reports of the enquiry officer and other connected materials has passed the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner was given all fair opportunity before conduct- ing the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 17(b). Inasmuch as the disciplinary authority is empowered to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved, notwithstanding the findings of the enquiry officer, is sustainable in law. The petitioner has also filed appeal before the appellate authority questioning the correctness of the order of punishment and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority by assigning valid reasons. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondents are correct and legal.

(3.) Heard both sides. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, is valid and legal.