S. SAHAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. He has been visited with orders of dismissal on two disciplinary actions Departmental Enquiry No. 9/77 relates to the period 1974-75 and Departmental Enquiry No. 10/77 relates to the period 1972-73. To appreciate the contentions raised by Mrs. Ramani Natarajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the charge memos initially issued against the Petitioner in respect of the two Departmental Enquiries. The charge memoin Departmental Enquiry No. 9/77 inter alia states that the Petitioner, in collusion with others charged along with him, violated the Town Planning Rules and contravened the normal official procedure. Equally so, the charge memo in Departmental Enquiry No. 10/77 inter alia states that the Petitioner violated the Town Planning Rules and contravened the normal official procedure. It is true that both the charge memo enumerate various instances. In reply to the charge memos, the Petitioner has taken a specific stand that the charge memos are vague, in that they do not mention as to what Town Planning Rules have been violated. The matters were enquired into by the Commissioner for disciplinary Proceedings and even in the report recommending dismissal from service, apart from touching this contention of the Petitioner that the charge memos suffer from vagueness and they are not specific with reference to the rules or the normal official procedure stated to have been violated this question has not at all been dealt with by the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings. There was a provisional conclusion arrived at and the Petitioner was called upon to reply there for and even in the reply, the Petitioner has taken up the stand that the charges framed against him are vague and suffer from indefiniteness. The grievances of the Petitioner, obviously, has been ignored and ultimately the Petitioner has been visited with orders of dismissal.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner that the charges are vague and suffer the infirmity of being indefinite has also been expressed in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions and in the common counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent what all has been stated is found in paragraph 13 thereof, which rums at follows;

(3.) The rule, is, no person in the civil service of the State shall be dismissed except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of there charges. Notice or memorandum of charges is the first limb of the rule and the memorandum of charges must be precise unambiguous and they must appraise the person sought to be proceeded against determinatively the case he has to meet. Obviously, the charge memos referred to violation of the Town Planning Rules and the normal official procedure. But, this has not been clearly expatiated in the charge memos as to what are the rules and the normal official procedure that were violated by the Petitioner. The Petitioner did feel aggrieved over this and he had been expressing his grievance throughout. In spite of this, there had been an attitude of callous indifference to this plea of the Petitioner and the matters had been proceeded with and apparently, the conclusion had been arrived at on the basis that there had been violations of the Town Planning Rules and the normal official procedure. Even before me, it has not been dear as to what are the Town planning Rules or the normal official procedure that were violated by the Petitioner. There is no dispute that the violation of the rules and the official procedure had been taken to be the gravamen of the charges levelled against the Petitioner though, very many instances have been enumerated in support of the charges. In this context, learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly relies on a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Surath Chand v. State of W.B., 1971 AIR(SC) 752 where the charge; were found to be exteriorly vague, and indefinite and this was also taken note of by the Supreme Court to state that there war a denial of a proper and a reasonable opportunity of defending against the charges.