K LAKSHMANAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 810 of 1981 vide judgment dated July 22, 1987.

(2.) SINCE the challenge in the appeal has been confined at the Bar by Mr. Chandru, learned counsel for the appellant, only to the manner in which the appeal filed by the appellant against the punishment imposed upon him by the deputy Director of Printing, Madras, of reduction in the time scale by three stages with cumulative effect for a period of three years from the date of reinstatement of the appellant in service, the period of reduction operating to postpone future increments besides treating the period of suspension undergone by him already, has been disposed, it is not necessary for us to advert to the detailed facts leading to the imposition of the punishment as hereinabove noticed by the deputy Director of Printing, Madras. Suffice it to notice that on a charge memo drawn up against the appellant on September 25, 1974 an enquiry was conducted and the punishment as hereinabove noticed was imposed by the Deputy director of Printing, Madras. It would be relevant to notice that apart from the appellant, certain other employees were also charge-sheeted and more or less similar punishments were imposed upon them also. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after receipt of the appeal petition dated May 5, 1975, was of the view that the punishment awarded to the appellant was inadequate, and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant vide Memo No. Pr. No. 94291/te. 11/75 dated march 24, 1976. The appellant submitted his explanation wherein he not only denied the allegation against him and pleaded complete innocence, but he also asserted that he had not committed any mistake wilfully or knowingly and that the proposal to enhance the punishment which the appellant was already undergoing by dismissing him from service was wholly unjustified and prayed that the said proposal to dismiss the appellant from service be dropped. He even volunteered to remit the amount of rs. 489. 60 to the Government. The Appellate authority vide order dated May 1, 1976, however, rejected the explanation and enhanced the punishment. The appellant was dismissed from service by virtue of the enhancement of punishment. The appellant questioned the appellate order through revision before the Government which failed. He further filed a reconsideration petition which also came to be rejected on April 11, 1978. It was at this stage that the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 810 of 1981 and as would be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the challenge made by the appellant was not confined to the enhancement of punishment, but also to the punishment as originally imposed. Various grounds were raised in the writ petition but as already noticed, since the challenge has been confined before us only to the enhancement of punishment, we need not detain ourselves to deal with the other grounds of challenge.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the enhancement of punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly unjustified. In support of his argument the learned counsel has submitted that since the dismissal is a major punishment, the enquiry that had been held prior to the imposition of punishment upon the appellant by the Deputy director of Printing, Madras could not be considered to be an appropriate enquiry in a matter involving imposition of major punishment of dismissal. The learned counsel then went on to submit that there had been a complete non-application of mind by the Director of Stationery and Printing while enhancing the punishment. He pointed out that the show-cause notice issued to the appellant for enhancement of punishment on March 24, 1976 and the order of punishment dated May 1, 1976 when read together would show that the Appellate Authority did not consider the explanation furnished by the appellant and without proper application of mind enhanced the punishment and awarded the major penalty of dismissal of the appellant. Mr. M. Vellaichamy, appearing for the Government pleader, however, submitted that the enhancement of punishment had been ordered by the appellate Authority in accordance with the rules, and since the Appellate Authority had issued a show cause notice to the appellant before enhancing the punishment, he had complied with the principles of natural justice and no interference is called for with the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition.