DR. V. ANANDAMOORTHI Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Programme Coordinator and Head of the Department of Materials and Media, in the State Resources Centre (hereinafter called the Centre), Chennai 20. He joined the service in the Centre in 1980 as Technical Assistant (Library and Documentation). On 21-2-1996 he was appointed as Programme Coordinator. On 4-6-1997 a charge memo was issued by the third respondent against the petitioner on the ground that while he was working as a Programme Coordinator, he has submitted a false travelling allowance bill, on 31-9-1997 for travel from Tiruchirapalli to Madras, by Rockfort Express on 27-3-1997 in First Class, even though the said journey was not performed by the petitioner in accordance with the particulars submitted by him and had also drawn the money for the said claim. The petitioner has submitted his explanation and an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted by the said officer, who submitted his report on 5-2-1998. On receipt of the report, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the third respondent. On 21-8-1998 the third respondent informed the decision of the governing body to impose the major penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to quash the order dated 21.8.1998.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the said proceedings are vitiated on the following grounds

(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed a counter denying those averments. According to the respondent, the preliminary enquiry is only for the purpose of finding out the prima facie case, and after perusing the records produced by the Railways, the concerned authority was satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. According to the respondent, the Chairman has every right in law to delegate his duties to any other suitable person in the exigencies of the situation. In the present case, according to the respondent, due to preoccupation with other matters, the second respondent had deputed the fourth respondent who is also an office bearer of the governing body to conduct the enquiry. It is the specific case of the respondent, that the petitioner did not point out the same on the basis that some prejudice was caused to him and he did not protect against the said appointment, either prior to or during the enquiry. With respect to notice regarding the nature of punishment, it is the case of the respondent that the enquiry is ordered only with respect to the major punishment, as no enquiry is necessary with respect to the minor punishment, and so there is no need to specify in the notice with respect to the punishment. In regard to quantum of punishment, it is the case of the respondent that taking into consideration the nature of irregularity and illegality the penalty imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate. While answering to the submission of the petitioner that for the meeting of the governing counsel held on 21.8.1998 notice was not given to all the members, it is stated in the counter that notice was given to all the members in accordance with the Regulation, and the resolution was passed unanimously by the members present, after prolonged discussion of the matter, and after applying their mind to the matter, and the same cannot be termed as mechanical. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents have submitted their submissions relying on the decided cases in support of their respective cases.