AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Original Application in O.A. No. 7864 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present
writ petition.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Guard on 22.11.1973. He was promoted as Forester in December 1992. While so, a charge
memo was issued by the third respondent under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules and the petitioner also submitted his
explanation on 08.01.1995 denying the charges. The third respondent issued proceedings dated 18.05.1995, cancelling the earlier charge memo
dated 07.12.1994 and issued a fresh charge memo, which contained the same allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated
25.06.1995 denying the allegations. The enquiry was initially conducted by Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mr. K.K. Sugirtharaj and later on by
another Assistant Conservator of Forests, Mr. T. Dhandapani. The enquiry was conducted on 27.01.1997, 17.03.1997 and 07.05.1997 and the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.02.1998, based on the report of the Enquiry
Officer imposing the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,167/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.7864 of 1998 (W.P. No.
33834 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid order dated 27.02.1998 of the second respondent.
The second respondent filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations.
Heard Mr. M. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jenita, learned Counsel for the respondents (Forests).
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. When the impugned order
relies on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the principles of natural justice requires that a copy of the same should be furnished to the petitioner
before relying on the same for imposing the punishment. The learned Counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Nawabkhan v. Superintendent of
Police, Chengai Mgr. East District, Chennai and Anr. reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1275 in this regard.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that since the punishment was imposed under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (D & A) Rules, the findings of the Enquiry Officer need not be furnished to the petitioner before imposing the punishment.
I have considered the submissions made on either side.
In my view, even in case of minor punishment if the same is imposed relying on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent ought
to have furnished a copy of the same before imposing the punishment so as to provide opportunity to the petitioner to submit his views on the
finding of guilt recorded in the enquiry. It is a different matter, if no enquiry was held and punishment was imposed based on the explanation
submitted by the petitioner. It is true, that the Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules does not contemplate holding of enquiry.
But the authority decides to hold the enquiry and also relied on the same for imposing punishment, the authority should furnish a copy of the report
of the Enquiry Officer, before imposing punishment. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, squarely applies to the facts
of the case. Paragraph 11 of the Judgment of this Court reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1275 is extracted here-under:
The above rulings will make it very clear that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the petitioner delinquent has got a right to
have a copy of the report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority arrives at a conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the
delinquent with regard to the charges levelled against him. A denial of the report is a denial of reasonable opportunity. It is a right of an employee
to have the report of the enquiry officer to defend himself effectively, otherwise he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or
against him and what is held against him. If the report is furnished to him, he could have persuaded the disciplinary authority that the finding arrived
at by enquiry officer is perverse or that the finding is based on no evidence or irrelevant materials and evidence. Definitely it would cause prejudice
to a delinquent, if the report is not furnished to him. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I am in full agreement with the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner that non-furnishing of the report of the enquiry report ha vitiated the entire proceedings.
In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. No
costs.