N DURAIRAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON consent the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed against the order, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the third respondent / Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent / Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner of Survey and Settlement in his order, dated 10.11.2009 and to quash the same as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and is in violation of Rules and principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondents herein to exonerate the petitioner from the charges and to settle all the consequential monetary and service benefits.

(3.) THE impugned orders are challenged on several grounds. THE learned counsel for the Petitioner has in the course of his argument mainly contended that the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority from the issuance of the show cause notice on 17.04.2008 till the date of imposing punishment is in gross violation of the procedure laid down under law and the principles of natural justice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delinquent officer must be given two show cause notices before imposing any punishment on him. In this case, straight away, the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquriy Officer. THE first show cause notice should be issued with his tentative reasons for such disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Delinquent Officer must be given an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority, before recording its finding on the charges. THEreafter, the report of the Disciplinary Authority, containing its findings, will have to be conveyed to the Delinquent Officer with an opportunity given to him to submit his objection to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. THEreafter, the Disciplinary Authority will have to pass the final order, imposing the punishment on the Delinquent Officer for the charges, which are in the view of the Disciplinary Authority held to be proved. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the Disciplinary Authority has in the instant case violated the procedure and principles as referred above and the disciplinary authority has even in the first show cause notice, dated 17.04.2008, prejudged the charges and held the charges as proved and passed the final order without giving any opportunity of personal hearing before recording its findings and without giving second show cause notice along with such findings to the petitioner, to enable him to give his objection and such course adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and vitiated and when such order is challenged by the Delinquent Officer by way of statutory appeal, the same is confirmed by the Appellate Authority not on merits, but mainly on the ground of delay in filing the appeal.