Order quashed full order of CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W. P.(MD)Nos.15130, 15151 of 2022 & 2438 of 2023and W.M.P(MD)Nos.10822, 10823, 10845 of 2022 & 2210 of 2023 1.W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022:- A.V.Radhakrishnan … Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 22.09.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W. P.(MD)Nos.15130, 15151 of 2022 & 2438 of 2023and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10822, 10823, 10845 of 2022 & 2210 of 2023
1.W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022:-
A.V.Radhakrishnan … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Personal Assistant (General) to District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the transfer orders issued by the second respondent herein in No.A1/01/2021-1 dated 30.12.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent herein to repost the petitioner in the post of Special Revenue Inspector in the Flying Squad in the office of the District Supply and Consumer Protection, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
2.W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2022:-
A.V.Radhakrishnan … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Personal Assistant (General) to District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the charge memo issued by the second respondent in Letter No.A1/10466/2022, dated 17.05.2022 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
3.W.P(MD)No.2438 of 2023:-
A.V.Radhakrishnan … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Personal Assistant (General) to District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Enquiry Officer/
District Backward Class Welfare Officer,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order of dismissal from service issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/10466/2022, dated 26.01.2023 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the transfer
order issued by the second respondent, dated 30.12.2021 and consequently direct the second respondent herein to re-post the
petitioner in the post of Special Revenue Inspector in the Flying Squad
in the office of the District Supply and Consumer Protection, Nagercoil.
2.W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2022 has been filed by the
petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the charge
memo issued by the second respondent, dated 17.05.2022.
3.W.P(MD)No.2438 of 2023 has been filed by the petitioner
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order of dismissal
from service issued by the first respondent, dated 26.01.2023.
4.Heard Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.N.Muthuvijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
5.The petitioner’s appointment was made on
compassionate grounds on the demise of his father, one A.Viswambaran, while he was in service as Village Assistant. The
petitioner joined duty as Junior Assistant on 13.12.2006 in the District Collectorate, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. His entire service from
13.12.2006 till 30.01.2023 is tabulated as follows:-
Sl.
No. From To Place of Work Post
1. 13.12.2006 30.06.2008 Collector Office, Nagercoil Joined duty in Collectorate as
Junior Assistant
2. 01.07.2008 27.07.2009 District Supply
Office, Nagercoil Special Revenue Inspector
3. 28.07.2009 07.06.2011 Taluk Supply
Office,
Vilavancode Special Revenue Inspector
4. 08.06.2011 13.11.2011 Taluk Office, Kalkulam Junior Assistant
5. 14.11.2011 27.03.2012 District Supply
Office, Nagercoil Special Revenue Inspector
6. 28.03.2012 02.08.2012 District
Aathidravidar
Welfare Office,
Nagercoil Junior Assistant
7. 03.08.2012 24.09.2014 Special Tahsildar,
Aathidravidar Welfare Office, Padmanabapuram. Junior Assistant
8. 25.09.2014 30.10.2015 Special Tahsildar,
Special Scheme,
Agastheeswaram Junior Assistant
9. 31.10.2015 07.12.2018 District Supply
Office, Nagercoil
Special Revenue Inspector
10. 08.12.2018 22.10.2021 Special Tahsildar,
Aathidravidar
Welfare Office Junior Assistant
11. 22.10.2021 31.12.2021 District Supply
Office, Nagercoil Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad
12. 14.07.2022 30.01.2023 Special Tahsildar SSS, Vilavancode Junior Revenue Inspector
6.During his service in the Department, the petitioner was
never permitted to continue for a minimum of three years in any place of work throughout his career. Though he was frequently transferred as per the whims and fancies of his higher authorities, he had never resisted his transfer order and had joined duty without any protest. He is an active member in the flying squad, encountering the smuggling of essential commodities like P.D.S rice and Kerosene to Kerala State. In a short span of two months, he seized atleast 12 vehicles which were smuggling P.D.S rice and Kerosene to Kerala State. Appreciating his duty, a certificate of merit was awarded by the District Collector in Republic Day by the then District Collector in Republic Day on
26.01.2017. While so, he was transferred from the post of Revenue Inspector essential commodities to the office of Special Tahsildar Social Service Scheme, Vilavancode, vide order dated 30.12.2021. Since he was transferred umpteen times within a short span of time, he made requests on 05.01.2022 and 02.05.2022 to the Personal Assistant of the District Collector, for which it was promised to repost him within a
short time, though three other persons were posted in his place subsequent to his transfer. Since his request was not considered, challenging the said transfer order passed by the second respondent,
dated 30.12.2021, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022.
7.Due to his ill health and mental agony, the petitioner did
not join duty. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined duty on 14.07.2022 as Junior Revenue Inspector in the office of Special Tahsildar, Social Welfare Scheme, Vilavancode. In the mean while, a show-cause notice was issued by the second respondent to the
petitioner on 22.03.2022 seeking an explanation as to why disciplinary
proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, could not be initiated as against him for not joining in the office of Special Tahsildar, Social Service Welfare Scheme at Vilavancode in terms of transfer order dated 30.12.2021. Following which a charge memo, dated 17.05.2022 was issued by the second respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. Challenging the said
charge memo, dated 17.05.2022, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No. 15151 of 2022. However, so far neither disciplinary proceeding has been initiated in the said charge memo nor any order has been passed
in the same.
8.The charge memo issued by the second respondent,
dated 17.05.2022 is of two counts of charges. The first charge was despite the transfer order, dated 30.12.2021, the petitioner did not join in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode, till the date of charge-memo and despite issuance of show cause notice, dated 22.03.2022, the petitioner failed to furnish his explanation thereby failed to continue in service duly obeying his higher authorities and creating difficult situation to the Department much to the prejudice of the common man in implementing the Social
Welfare Scheme.
9.During the pendency of W.P(MD)Nos.15130 and 15151 of 2022, the second respondent appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The District Minority Welfare Officer, who is a Higher Grade Officer, was appointed as an enquiry officer instead of a Tahsildar rank officer, which was in violation of the Service Rules. The petitioner made his written objection on 20.06.2022 for the appointment of the District Minority Welfare Officer, who is in the cadre of disciplinary authority, as an enquiry officer. However, negating the objection raised by the petitioner and without appreciating the illegality in the appointment of the enquiry officer in the cadre of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector instead of an enquiry officer to be appointed in the rank of Tahsildar, the enquiry
officer proceeded with the enquiry. The enquiry officer without furnishing any copy of the documents pertaining to the enquiry despite several requests made by the petitioner on 12.07.2022, 22.07.2022 and 29.07.2022 proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report, dated 20.12.2022, in a hurried manner to the first respondent
concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner is proved. The first respondent, without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report,
had sent a show-cause notice requiring the explanation of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 29.12.2022. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent on 13.01.2023 and made his written submission elaborately. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal from service, dated 26.01.2023 came to be passed by the first respondent. Challenging the same, W.P(MD)No.2438 of 2023
came to be filed.
10.The first respondent had filed a counter-affidavit and
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was posted as Special Revenue Inspector in the cadre of Junior Assistant in Flying Squad Wing of the District Supply Office, Nagercoil in the month of September, 2021. After repeated complaints and allegations against the petitioner, he was transferred to the post of Junior Revenue Inspector in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode, vide the
impugned proceedings dated 30.12.2021 impugned in
W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022.
11.The petitioner’s submission that he made requests on 05.01.2022 and 02.05.2022 to retain him at Nagercoil is a blatant line and the petitioner’s reasoning that he was not able to join duty due to his ill health was not informed by him to the office of the respondents. In the absence of information, the petitioner was issued with a showcause notice and since the same was not replied to, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, vide proceedings dated 17.05.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in
W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2022. Only after slapping the charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
the petitioner joined the new post on 14.07.2022. Due to the disobedience on the part of the petitioner, the charge-memo was issued and since the charges were proved, he was imposed with a punishment of dismissal vide impugned order dated 26.01.2023. Since no interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioner by this Court in any of the Writ Petitions, the respondents proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings. However, the petitioner failed to co-operate
with the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and he also
miserably failed in utilising the opportunity to prove his innocence.
Hence, the charges were held proved and the first respondent as the Collector of the District certainly has the authority to appoint any person as an enquiry officer and the petitioner has no manner of right
to question the appointment of the enquiry officer.
12.All the documents pertaining to the enquiry and
disciplinary proceedings were furnished to the petitioner during the first hearing itself and after that, the petitioner did not attend any enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. Had he attended the enquiry, he would have received all the documents available in the file. Despite sufficient opportunities being given to the petitioner, he failed to utilize all those opportunities and there was no hurry in disposing the charges and all the procedures framed under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, were followed in letter and spirit. A copy of the enquiry officer’s report was provided to the petitioner along with the personal enquiry notice and the petitioner appeared for enquiry on 13.01.2023 before the first respondent and submitted his written representation. Due to the total disobedience of the petitioner in Government service, he was imposed with a capital punishment of dismissal from service under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and he deserves the said punishment and the same need not be interfered with and on that basis, he required the Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
13.However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant
case and on perusal of the materials available on records, it is clear that the petitioner while serving as Special Revenue Inspector in the Flying Squad Wing encountering the smuggling of essential
commodities was transferred by the order of the second respondent, dated 30.12.2021 to the post of Junior Revenue Inspector in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode. However, agitating the said transfer order, the petitioner had filed a
Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022 before this Court and this Court did not pass any interim order in the said Writ Petition. Even after that, the petitioner, without joining in the destination where he
was transferred and without submitting any leave letter to the
authorities concerned, had refrained from discharging his service as a Government servant. Under such circumstances, on 22.03.2022, a show-cause notice was issued by the second respondent seeking an explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955, should not be initiated as against him, for which, the petitioner failed to give his explanation as required in the said
show-cause notice within a period of 15 days.
14.Thereafter, a charge-memo came to be issued by the
second respondent vide proceedings, dated 17.05.2022 for two counts of charges namely (i) not joining to the transferred place in the post of Junior Revenue Inspector in the office of Special Tahsildar, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode and (ii) insubordination to the higher authorities, failure to furnish explanation to the show-cause notice, dated 22.03.2022 and hindrance in implementation of welfare scheme to the common man by not discharging his duties. Following which, the first respondent appointed one District Minority Welfare Officer as an enquiry officer to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner. Since the District Minority Welfare Officer was in the cadre of disciplinary authority, the petitioner agitated vide his written objection, dated 20.06.2022 for appointing an enquiry officer, who is in a higher rank instead of appointing a Tahsildar rank officer as an enquiry officer. However, dismissing his agitation, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry as against the petitioner. Though the respondents claimed to have furnished all the documents to the
petitioner at the time of enquiry, their submission that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to prove his innocence by promptly cooperating with the enquiry officer would suffice to understand that he was not given with a proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry as against him. That apart, the respondents claim to have
furnished a copy of the enquiry report, dated 20.12.2022.
15.Though the first respondent has submitted in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit that three opportunities were given to the petitioner to attend the enquiry in advance, nowhere it is
stated that they furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the
petitioner. That apart, the procedure to be followed to impose a major penalty under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1955, mandates as follows:-
“Rule 17(b): Procedure to be followed to impose Major penalties.
(i) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public
Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, (Central Act XXXVII of 1850), in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service or on a person holding a Civil Post under the State any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in rule 8, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegation, on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. An oral inquiry shall be held if such an inquiry is desired by the person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. Even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry, such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral inquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before passing of final orders.
A report of the inquiry or personal hearing (as the case may be) shall be prepared by the authority holding the inquiry or personal hearing whether or not such authority is competent to impose the penalty. Such report shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence , if any, and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by its predecessor or partly recorded by its predecessor and partly recorded by itself;
Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses as hereinbefore provided:
Provided further that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 20-B of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, the complaints Committee established in each
Government department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these Rules.
Provided also that the Government Servant may take the assistance of any retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the inquiring authority is a legal practitioner or the inquiring authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.
Explanation .- The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any retired Government servant who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand, in which he has to give assistance.
Rule 17(b):(ii) After the inquiry or personal hearing referred to in clause (i) has been completed, the authority competent to impose the penalty specified in that clause, is of the opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, that any of the penalties specified in rule 8 should be imposed on the person charged, it shall, before making an order imposing such penalty, furnish to him a copy of the report of the inquiry or personal hearing or both, as the case may be, and call upon him to submit his further representation, if any, within a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days. Any representation received in this behalf within the period shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing the penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry only. It shall not be necessary to give the person charged any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed;
Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the disciplinary authority shall consult the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty:
Provided further that in the case of a person appointed to a post in a temporary department by transfer from any other class or by recruitment by transfer from any other service, the State Government may, at any time before the appointment of such person as a full member to the said post, revert him to such other class or service, either for want of vacancy or in the event of his becoming surplus to requirements or if the State Government are satisfied that he has not got the necessary aptitude for work in the said post, without observing the formalities prescribed in this subrule.”
16.None of the procedures contemplated as extracted
supra has been followed by the first respondent in the disciplinary proceedings initiated as against the petitioner in which capital punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. In addition to that,
G.O.Ms.No.10, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department, dated 07.01.1994, mandates that a Government servant can generally be transferred from one place to another only after completion of three years of service in the same station. Though several allegations of malpractices have been alleged by the respondents as against the petitioner for the reason for issuing frequent transfer orders against him, the same has not been duly proved in the findings of the first respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. The procedure to be followed in disciplinary cases against the Government servants is laid down in detail in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in conformity with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and following which a detailed guidelines have been issued in Government Circular No.14353/Per.N/93-1, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per-N) Department, dated 11.03.1993. It has been illustrated in the aforesaid guidelines that for the nature of irregularity of absence from duty with or without leave application for a period upto 16 months in the case of
probationers and upto 12 months in the case of approved
probationers, the suggested punishment would be under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. However, for the nature of irregularities of wanton, wilful and deliberate disobedience or orders of the Government PC & CRA or any higher authorities, Collector, Additional Collector/DRO, SubController/RDO, Tahsildars etc., and failure to join duty on issuing posting orders, the suggested punishment is two years stoppage of
increment without cumulative effect.
17.In the instant case, the petitioner was transferred by
the second respondent, dated 30.12.2021. Without submitting a proper leave application, he remained absent for the period of 7-1/2
months and thereafter, on 14.07.2022, he joined duty in the
transferred place. In view of the guidelines issued in the Government Circular, dated 11.03.1993, discussed supra, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, could be initiated only for the absence from duty with or without leave upto to 12 months in the case of approved
probationers.
18.No doubt, the petitioner is an approved probationer who
was serving as Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad of District Supply Office, Nagercoil at the time of transfer on 30.12.2021. In addition to that, for the irregularity of wanton, wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of the higher authorities, a punishment of two years of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect could be imposed. However, in the instant case, the punishment imposed by the first respondent is capital punishment of dismissal from service. The Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, vide Circular No.6 of 2015, RC.No.Ser 3(4)/7621/2015, dated 30.06.2015, has issued detailed instructions regarding the handling of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) and 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In Clause 9(a) of the said Circular, the disciplinary authorities for the officials of Revenue Department in the cadre of Junior Assistant is P.A (General) to the Collector and Assistant is DRO. The petitioner, at the time of issuance of charge-memo, was holding the post of Revenue Inspector which is in the cadre of Junior Assistant. As such, the disciplinary authority is only P.A (General) to the District Collector ie., the second respondent. However, the first respondent ie, the District Collector had directly taken the mantle of disciplinary authority in his hands and had certainly proceeded to impose capital punishment on the petitioner swiftly thereby taking away the petitioner’s right of appeal before the DRO, Revision and Review before the CRA and Government
respectively. Though the first respondent had submitted before this Court that the petitioner indulged in various irregularities including colluding with the rice smugglers in Kanyakumari District all those incidents referred to in the counter-affidavit in para 2 were with respect to certain incidents which happened as early as during the
years 2012, 2013 and 2014.
19.It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that on 26.01.2017, the then District Collector Thiru.Sajjansingh R.Chavan, Kanyakumari District had placed the meritorious services rendered by the petitioner as Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad, District Supply Office on record by issuing a certificate of merit on the Republic Day. Hence, all the allegations of having colluded with the rice smugglers during the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 cannot be re-opened by the first respondent after having appreciated the petitioner’s service rendered as Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad, District Supply office on 26.01.2017. Though the scope of judicial review to interfere with the punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding by the authorities is limited, placing on record the fact that the first respondent had indulged in initiating disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner and has passed the impugned order of capital punishment himself by superseding the second respondent’s authority to Act as the disciplinary authority in the instant case. That apart, an officer in the cadre of Tahsildar should have been appointed as an enquiry officer, but an officer in the cadre of Social Welfare Officer was appointed as an enquiry officer in this case. In addition to that, this Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary authority ie., the first respondent failed to prove that the absence from duty was wilful and
the finding of the enquiry officer is also not to that effect.
20.In total having observed that the punishment which the
disciplinary authority ought to have imposed on the petitioner should have been two years of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for the irregularities of wanton, wilful and deliberate
disobedience of the higher authorities in terms of the guidelines of the Department of Revenue Administration, Chennai, dated 13.09.2001 and the Government Circular of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.N) Department, dated 11.03.1993 and that capital punishment could be imposed only for those persons, who had been absent from duty with or without leave application upto 12 months and recording the fact that the petitioner was absent only from the period 30.12.2021 to 14.07.2021, the punishment imposed by the first respondent on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment,
dated 26.01.2023 passed by the first respondent.
21.Since the petitioner had joined in the post of Junior Revenue Inspector, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode obliging to the transfer order, dated 30.12.2021, the Writ Petition filed by him challenging the transfer order in W.P(MD)No.15130 of 2022 has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed as
infructuous.
22.In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 26.01.2023 passed by the first respondent in W.P(MD)No.2438 of 2023 is quashed and W.P(MD)No.2438 of 2023 stands allowed and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2022, challenging the charge memo, dated 17.05.2022 issued by the second respondent is disposed of and consequently, this Court remands the case of the petitioner back to the first respondent with the following directions:-
(i) The first respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner in the post of Junior Revenue Inspector in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Social Service Scheme at Vilavancode.
(ii) To appoint an enquiry officer in the cadre of Tahsildar to
deal with the disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner.
(iii) Only the second respondent could be the disciplinary
authority in the case of the petitioner.
(iv) All the four documents in Annexure 3 of the charge
memo, dated 17.05.2022 be furnished to the petitioner.
(v) The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority should
give an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to submit his
explanation and to cross-examine the witnesses, if any, on the basis of
whose statement the enquiry would rely upon.
(vi) The authority concerned is directed to dispose of the
disciplinary proceedings in accordance with mandates of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
(vii) The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the
disciplinary authorities, failing which, the disciplinary authorities are directed to proceed in the manner known to law.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Personal Assistant (General) to District Collector,
Collectorate at Ramavarmapuram,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
ps
Pre-Delivery Order mader in
W.P.(MD)Nos.15130, 15151 of 2022
& 2438 of 2023
12.10.2023