N PUNNIAMOORTHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent-Commissioner of Municipal Administration in Na.Ka.No.1714/2003/F1 dated 13.8.2007, in which the first respondent, after differing from the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the petitioner, called for explanation from the petitioner as to why the disciplinary authority should not deviate from the findings and conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer, by adding two more allegations, for passing final orders.

(2.) Assailing the said proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in Rameswaram Town Panchayat between the years 1999 and 2001, the second respondent-Collector of Ramanathapuram District framed four charges against him by issuance of the charge memo dated 28.12.2001. The first charge related to the purchase of certain materials like blue metal, brick, etc., from the unapproved outlets by showing 25% inflated rate on the cost of material and transport; the second charge also related to purchase of similar materials from unapproved outlets and causing loss to the exchequer and the third and fourth charges are usual charges, namely, without realising his official position, he had acted in contravention of the rules, rendering himself unbecoming of a Government servant, and thereby committed misconduct. After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 28.10.2002 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. But, unfortunately, the first respondent/disciplinary authority, differing with the report filed by the enquiry officer dated 28.10.2002 exonerating the petitioner, appointed the second enquiry officer to go into the same charges and it was further submitted that even the second enquiry officer submitted his report dated 16.12.2003, again exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. Even after the two reports exonerating the petitioner by the two enquiry officers, the present impugned proceeding has been issued by the disciplinary authority, with a delay of four years, on 13.8.2007, differing with the report of the enquiry officer dated 16.12.2003, adding two more allegations, stating that the disciplinary authority would be passing final orders after receipt of the petitioner's explanation.

(3.) Adding further, it was stated that when the law is well settled that if the disciplinary authority is of the view that the report of the enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent officer is not acceptable, it is always open to the disciplinary authority to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer by giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer and only after calling for explanation from the concerned delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority could pass appropriate suitable orders. But, in the present case, the disciplinary authority, after obtaining a report from the first enquiry officer on 28.10.2002, being not satisfied with the report exonerating the petitioner of all the charges, once again, even without seeking any explanation as to why he should not differ from the said report, wrongly appointed the second enquiry officer. Fortunately, the second enquiry officer also submitted another report on 16.12.2003 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. Once again the disciplinary authority, without even accepting the second report submitted by the second enquiry officer, issued the present impugned proceedings, adding two more allegations, stating that he would be passing final order on receiving the further explanation from the petitioner. This clearly shows that the disciplinary authority was not inclined to hold any further enquiry and has issued the impugned proceedings only to victimise the petitioner, although the two enquiry officers had held him innocent in respect of the charges. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in S.C.Tamil Selvan v. Board of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., rep.by the Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai and another,2008 7 MadLJ 318 to canvass the point that when an enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer and if it is found to be irregular, it is open to the disciplinary authority to either discredit it or record a finding on his own. But he cannot seek for a second report on the very same materials. One another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Perumal Chetty v. Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai and others, 2009 4 MadLJ 1205 was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to support his case that it is not open to the respondents to issue a fresh charge memo after receipt of the enquiry report dated 28.10.2002 exonerating the petitioner by the first enquiry officer, since, when the said report is dislodged or differed, the disciplinary authority should call upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the first report submitted by the enquiry officer should not be disregarded.