M.R.GOVINDARAJI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been directed against the two impugned proceedings dated 17.3.2020 issued by the second respondent and also the proceedings dated 20.3.2020 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing these two impugned proceedings, argued inter alia that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings wrongly, vide the charge memo dated 2.5.2019, without even furnishing the requisite documents, enabling him to prepare his defence to the said charge memo. Although the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.22985 of 2019 challenging the charge memo, the writ petition was dismissed, as against which Writ Appeal No.4030 of 2019 was filed unsuccessfully. The Hon'ble Division Bench, dismissing the writ appeal, vide order dated 30.1.2020, confirming the order passed in the writ petition, holding that the conclusions drawn by the learned single Judge did not suffer from any infirmities, granted liberty to the petitioner to contest the matter before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In the said order, the Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that so far as the supply of documents is concerned, as the petitioner had already filed a separate writ petition, it is not necessary to deal with the same. When the said Writ Petition No.35543 of 2019 is still pending, the disciplinary authority ought not to have appointed the inquiry officer to probe into the correctness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, as the question whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the documents in question, is sub judice. The reason being that without even receiving the copy of the requisite documents, the petitioner is unable to submit his written defence. Secondly, the inquiry officer, even during the pendency of the writ appeal, had submitted his report dated 26.12.2019, which was also challenged in Writ Petition No.4116 of 2020. In the meanwhile, adding fuel to fire, Mr.Ravi contended that on receipt of the inquiry report dated 26.12.2019, the Deputy General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, furnishing the copy of the report, called for written explanation from the petitioner within seven days time. Since the Writ Petition No.4116 of 2020 challenging the correctness of the inquiry officer's report has been pending for consideration, the petitioner was advised not to submit his written submission to the inquiry officer's report dated 26.12.2019. However, after dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.4030 of 2019, the petitioner was advised to submit his detailed written explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner sent his written submission on 9.3.2020, which was also received by the second respondent on 10.3.2020 and the proof of acknowledgment issued by the second respondent is also enclosed at page-80 of the typedset, therefore, the second respondent should have taken up the written submission dated 9.3.2020. But without even considering the written submission dated 9.3.2020 submitted to the inquiry officer's report, the respondents have proceeded against the petitioner by issuing the impugned proceedings dated 17.3.2020 and 20.3.2020. By the proceedings dated 17.3.2020, the Deputy General Manager (B&O)/second respondent has mentioned that since the time given to the petitioner for submission of his defence to the inquiry report stood expired, it was construed that the petitioner had no explanation to offer. That approach of the respondents clearly would show that somehow the petitioner had to be sent out from the institution, therefore, the impugned proceedings prejudging the issue, also shows that the petitioner is being victimized before being heard. Hence, the impugned proceedings shall be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been departmentally prosecuted for serious charges issued against him. But the petitioner, on receipt of the charge memo, without giving any explanation in writing, prolonging the enquiry, resorted to the Court every now and then, therefore, the inquiry officer completed he inquiry. He further argued that the petitioner was also informed vide letter dated 25.2.2020 that though sufficient time was given for submission of his defence proof for the report of the inquiry officer, he had failed to utilize the same, hence, there was nothing wrong in their communication dated 17.3.2020 telling him that he had no defence to make for the report of the inquiry officer. On the basis of the same, Mr.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel further argued that when all along, after the notice dated 31.12.2019 giving the petitioner to submit his written submission within seven days time, the petitioner miserably failed to submit his defence, as he sent the belated written submission only on 9.3.2020, said to have been received by the office of the second respondent on 10.3.2020, it has to be construed as time barred, because that is the law. Therefore, no fault can be attributed against the respondents for not considering the representation dated 9.3.2020. Hence, for all these reasons, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.