K R VENKATACHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was an Assistant Executive Engineer, in the Public Works Department, filed W.P.No.569 of 1984 in this Court, questioning the validity of the order of the first respondent-State Government dismissing him from service. A charge memo had been issued to him on 10.5.1979 calling upon him to show cause, followed by an inquiry by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Division, who submitted his report on 7.11.1979. On receipt of this report, the State Government found certain defects in the proceedings and ordered accordingly for a fresh inquiry. THE inquiry this time was entrusted to the personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore Nilgiris Circle, who submitted his report on 6.3.1980. Acting upon the said report, the first respondent came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Accordingly, a second show cause notice calling upon him to offer his explanation with regard to the proposed punishment was issued on 7.12.1981. THE petitioner offered his explanation on 20.1.1982. THE first respondent thereafter consulted the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. THE Commission offered its remarks on 3.6.1983. THE first respondent, in the light of the views expressed by the Commission, after examining the case, decided to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. THE petitioner accordingly was dismissed from service.

(2.) SEVERAL contentions were raised in the petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, which eventually have been disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court. In this appeal, however, a contention has been raised based upon a statement of fact with regard to the second inquiry. The learned Single Judge, has, in his order, noticed. ?There was an enquiry by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Coim-batore Division, on 7.11.1979, and he submitted his report. Not satisfied with that enquiry, there was an order of a second enquiry, which was conducted by the Personal Assistant to Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Coimbatore, Nilgiris Circle and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 6.3.1980.? was such a discretion available to the disciplinary authority to set aside or ignore the inquiry already conducted by saying that it was not satisfied with the inquiry? To understand fully thus the implication of the afore quoted observation on facts in the judgment of the learned single Judge, we directed the respondents to produce the order under which the first inquiry was set aside, and the second inquiry was ordered. Learned counsel for the State has produced before us the file containing the letter NO.114510/E2/78-1, dated 14.1.1980, from the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Madras, to the Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Madras, on the subject of the inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In that letter, it is said;

(3.) ART.311 of the Constitution of India as well as the rule aforementioned do not attach any value to the report of the inquiry officer. All that ART311 contemplates is an inquiry into the charges and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges, and gives to the disciplinary authority the power to impose penalty on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry Rule 17(b) also says, after the inquiry or personal hearing referred to in Clause (1) had been completed and if the authority competent to impose the penalty mentioned in that clause is of the opinion on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, that any of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, that any of the penalties specified therein should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty. Where before the submission of the report or after, if defects in the inquiry are noticed and a rectification is found desirable, we think it will be permissible to order for such rectification. No fault, therefore, can be found with the Government's letter dated 14.1.1980.