S. PAULRAJ Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the 2nd respondent dtd. 10/1/2017. The 2nd respondent, through the impugned order dtd. 10/1/2017 imposed punishment of pension cut of Rs.300.00 per month for a period of ten years and for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,93,065.00, being the monetary loss caused to the fair price shops.

(2.) The following are the short facts which necessitated the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The petitioner was working as a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He was due to retire on 30/6/2005. However, he was placed under suspension on 30/6/2005 pending enquiry to various charges. Thereafter, he was permitted to retire from service, pending disciplinary proceedings. While he was in service, four charges dtd. 12/10/1999, 25/1/2000, 13/7/2001 and 15/6/2005 were framed and served on him. He gave explanation denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry and filed a report. The Enquiry Officer found substantial charges were not proved. The Enquiry Officer's report was communicated to the petitioner on 21/6/2005. The petitioner was called upon to furnish his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his explanation on 12/7/2005. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent through communication dtd. 4/11/2015 informed the petitioner that the Government deviated from the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges found not proved and thus, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment should not be imposed in respect of all charges as found in Paragraph No. 3 of the said communication. The petitioner gave a detailed objection/explanation on 15/12/2015. The petitioner has questioned the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to impose the punishment, based on such deviated view, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain on such deviation. However, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order of punishment.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. The crux of the contentions raised by the respondents is that the report of the Enquiry Officer and his findings are advisory in nature and are not binding on the disciplinary authority who can disagree with them and come to his own view based on assessment of the evidence forming part of the record of enquiry. Thus, it is contended by the respondent that the disciplinary authority, if disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, will only have to record his own findings. It is further stated in the counter affidavit at paragraph No. 14 as follows: