G. Kannan vs The State of Tamilnadu <BR>T. Sivakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The charges are framed against the petitioners herein on 10.2.1999 on the ground that they did not do their supervision correctly and discharged their functions properly. The petitioners had given their explanations on 2.5.1999 and the Enquiry Officer had given his reports on 22.7.2003 finding the petitioners guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the orders impugned were passed on 28.7.2005 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in a Departmental Enquiry it is for the Department to prove the charges. No witnesses have been examined and no records have been marked. Both the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority placed the entire onus on the petitioners to disprove the charges framed against them. Such an yardstick is contrary to law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh, . Yet another submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that when the petitioners have given their detailed reply the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the same and passed a speaking order. The occurrence was in the year 1997 and therefore at this point of time this Court shall not remit the matter for consideration as the orders impugned does not disclose any reasons.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the orders have been passed based upon the records. As the petitioners were made in-charge they have to give their explanation for dereliction of their duty. The disciplinary authority has passed the orders based on the reports of the Enquiry Officer, who has gone into the facts governing the case. Therefore, no interference is required.

Reasoning is the heart beat of any decision having civil consequence. A perusal of the orders impugned would show that absolutely no reasons have been assigned. The respondent has merely accepted the reports of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in turn has not examined any of the witnesses in support of the charges but put the entire blame on the petitioners. No document is appears to have been marked and discussed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in a Departmental proceedings, it is for the Department to prove the charges.

The charges are pertaining to the alleged occurrence which has happened in 1997. Now more than 15 years have elapsed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The charges are to the effect that the petitioners have failed to discharge their duty properly. It appears that in some of the cases the works have been completed, though belatedly. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the case back to the respondents for fresh consideration. In such view of the matter, the orders impugned have to be set aside.

Accordingly, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.