LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-36

S.BASKAR Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

Decided On November 05, 2014
S.BASKAR Appellant
V/S
The Principal Secretary to Government Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Special Revenue Inspector in the cadre of Junior Assistant on 20.12.1984 and he was absorbed in the Social Welfare Department as Junior Assistant on 13.10.1988. Thereafter, he was promoted to the posts of Assistant, Superintendent and Assistant Accounts Officer respectively. Charges have been framed against the petitioner by the first respondent on 06.06.2012 under R.17 -(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Along with the petitioner, two other officers by name G. Kasthuri, the then Superintendent and now Office Manager and S.Vaideki, the then Assistant and now Superintendent, were also charged. As R.9 -A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, prescribes that when more than one officer is involved, all of them shall be taken into a common proceeding with respect to disciplinary action and the Government shall function as the Disciplinary Authority being competent authority to impose any of the penalties mentioned in R.8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the procedure prescribed in R.17(b) of the said Rules shall be followed. Appropriate proceedings have been initiated on the delinquent officers.

(2.) THE one and the only submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that considering the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, R.17(a) of the Rules alone would be applicable. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has not followed the Rules for which he was negligent with the Rules and for that major penalty is not required to be imposed by framing charges under R.17(b) of the Rules.

(3.) THOUGH charges have been framed under R.17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, they will have to be construed as such only for the purpose of R.9 -A, which prescribes that the proceedings should be followed as if 17(b) charges are framed. In other words, there is no bar for the Disciplinary Authority in giving lesser punishment in the event of charges have been proved against the petitioner as the case may be. A wide discretion is available to the first respondent while following the procedure contemplated under R.17(b) to impose any of the penalty mentioned under R.8, provided the charges are proved. It is once again made clear that the charges are made only for the purpose of R.9 -A, which prescribes that the proceedings should be followed in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner cannot be felt aggrieved. He is only given a better opportunity to participate in an extensive proceeding as stipulated under the Rules. Insofar as the merits of the charges are concerned, the law is quite settled until and unless perversity or lack of jurisdiction is shown, this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot take away the role of Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer or go into the merits of the case.