D.RAJAN Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 26.06.2018 passed in W.A.No.702 of 2018, while setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10444 of 2016, dated 31.10.2017, has remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on merits and in accordance with law. In view of such remission, this writ petition is before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner/Mr.D.Rajan was serving as Assistant in Pethikuppam (Incoming) Check Post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical), Transport Department, under the control of the Regional Transport Officer, Redhills, a surprise inspection was conducted by the District Inspection Cell Officer, Kanchipuram, Tiruvallur District, along with the officer of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Kanchipuram Detachment, on 06.07.2011, between 4.30 am and 06.00 a.m., whereby an unaccounted money to the tune of Rs.47,245/- was found and the same was seized. When the petitioner was serving as Assistant, 2 other officials, namely, Mr.V.Elangovan, Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non- Technical) and Mr.K.Srinivasan, Office Assistant, were also serving. In the other check post, one Mr.R.Panneerselvam, Motor Vehicle Inspector, was serving as in-charge. In view of seizure of money, a charge memo was issued on 20.08.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules (in short "the Rules") calling upon him to submit his explanation. On receipt of the same, he submitted his detailed representation dated 25.09.2013 requesting to furnish copies of documents and permit him to peruse the connected documents stated in Annexure-III and also to take over copies of documents. It is also the claim of the petitioner that the documents sought for by him were not furnished to him, therefore, such an action of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) One of the main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per rule 9A of the Rules, the Transport Commissioner is the Appellate Authority, therefore, framing of charges and imposing of penalty against the petitioner by the Transport Commissioner / first respondent herein would amount to denial of the valuable right of appeal. It is further pleaded that as per Rule 9A of the Rules, where more than one Government employee of the same department is involved, the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by the immediate highest authority in that department. Whileso, when the third respondent herein / Regional Transport Officer, Redhills, Chennai, had issued a charge memo dated 20.08.2013 under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, punishment can be imposed only by the second respondent / Joint Transport Commissioner, who is the appointing authority and immediate highest authority in respect of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical). However, in the present case, since the Joint Transport Commissioner is the appointing authority to Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non Technical), who is the highest official involved during the surprise inspection held on 06.07.2011, the Transport Commissioner/first respondent herein, being an Appellate Authority, cannot impose the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect against the petitioner and one Mr.V.Elangovan, Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non-Technical), while exonerating the charges levelled against Mr.R.Panneerselvam, Motor Vehicle Inspector (Non Technical) and Mr.K.Srinivasan, Office Assistant. Therefore, it is further contended that when the allegation is common, namely, recovery of amount from the record room, the order passed by the Transport Commissioner/first respondent herein, who is the Appellate Authority, is liable to be set aside, since the petitioner was deprived of the valuable right of appeal. When an appeal provision is provided to the highest authority concerned against the order of disciplinary authority or of a lower authority and the highest authority passes an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of valuable right of appeal, which is impermissible as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others [(1995) 2 SCC 474].