R RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VRITHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-R.Radhakrishnan, filed the present Writ Petition (Originally O.A. No.1370 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai), seeking to quash the order of dismissal from service, passed against him by the respondent in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.A1/6900/97, dated 21.07.1999, and to issue a consequential direction for reinstatement, etc.

(2.) MR.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by outlining the factual scenario, submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 26.04.1984 and posted at Kachirpalayam Village, Vrithachalam Taluk, South Arcot District. On transfer, he served at various places and, finally, he was posted at Pazhayapattinam Village, Vrithachalam Taluk, on 13.06.1994, with an additional charge of Kotteri Village and Mummudichozhagan Village. While serving there, he was placed under Suspension, by order dated 29.10.1997, alleging that he had misappropriated the land tax collected by him to the tune of Rs.10,689/-. After enquiry and a preliminary report received from the Deputy Tahsildar, Vrithachalam, the Tahsildar, Vrithachalam, found the petitioner 'not guilty' as there was no arrear of revenue to the Government and recommended for revocation of suspension and reinstatement of petitioner into service. Though the petitioner was under suspension for 9 months, no subsistence allowance was paid to him as per Rules. The respondent had no authority to place the petitioner under suspension for more than 6 months without obtaining the approval of his higher authority viz., the District Collector. Subsequently, the respondent issued a charge memo, dated 04.12.1998, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules (in short 'Rules'). In the meanwhile, on the ground that the suspension period was in continuance beyond six months and that the enquiry could not be completed yet, the suspension order came to be revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceedings, reinstating the petitioner into service by order, dated 08.08.1998, and posting him at Sirumangalam Village as VAO. Thereafter, in response to the charge memo, dated 04.12.1998, issued under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, denying all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, ordered for holding of an enquiry by fixing the date of enquiry as 27.05.1999. After receiving the notice for the enquiry scheduled, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer - the Deputy Tahsildar, Vrithachalam. By pausing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was not conducted on 27.05.1999 for the reason that the said Deputy Tahsildar was transferred to some other place and in his place, one MR.Sakthivel, Deputy Tahsildar, was posted. Curiously, the said MR.Sakthivel informed the petitioner that he too was not appointed as Enquiry Officer, therefore, he could not conduct the enquiry on 27.05.1999 and that the enquiry would be conducted on some other date. The enquiry was scheduled to be held on 15.06.1999, on which date also, the petitioner appeared before the R.D.O., Vrithachalam, but, once again, the enquiry was not held on that day. In spite of the petitioner making his presence, his appearance was purposely not marked. Ultimately, due to political interference, the respondent refused to meet the petitioner and to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner was under the bona fide impression that subsequent date of hearing would be informed to him, however, to his shock and surprise, the petitioner received the impugned order of dismissal dated 21.07.1999 as though he remained ex-parte. Under such circumstances, learned counsel states that the order of dismissal passed, in an extraneous background, is not only bad in law but, inasmuch as the procedure adumbrated under Rule-17(b) of the Rules have not been adhered to and complied with, the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that, even assuming that the petitioner failed to appear for the enquiry, at least, before imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, the Disciplinary Authority should have issued a second notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation having regard to the punishment proposed to be imposed, as to why such proposal should not be accepted against the petitioner. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent, without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed, straight away passed the impugned order - adopting a course in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. By pointing out that the petitioner rendered unblemished services of 15 years and that, being the sole bread-winner of the family, he has been put to great hardship and sufferings due to the malicious attitude of the respondent, in that, the impugned ex parte order of dismissal came to be passed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer despite the fact that the petitioner made appearance learned counsel would reiterate his earlier contention that, failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to issue a second notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his further explanation as regards the proposal to impose the major penalty, would undoubtedly vitiate the impugned order and hence, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained.

(3.) IT is pertinent to point out here that one of the major requirements that should be complied with in such proceedings is that, before passing final orders, the person charged shall be heard in person and the competent authority shall furnish to him, a copy of the report of the enquiry or personal hearing or both and call upon him to submit his further representation within fifteen days which shall be taken into consideration before imposing the penalty, of course, such procedure need not be adopted in cases where penalty is to be imposed on the basis of conviction in a criminal court. IT goes without saying that the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, who are administrative authorities, acting in quasi-judicial capacity, are obliged under the Rules, which operate in areas not covered by any law validly made, to act objectively and dispassionately not only during the procedural stage of the enquiry but also at every phase until arriving at a final conclusion.