G. Karunakaran vs The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Panchayat, in Tiruvallur District. While he was working as a Municipal

Engineer he was served with a charge memo, by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, in Memo No. 66685/96/C2, dated

27.10.1996. After receiving the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the respondent, on 30.12.1996. An enquiry officer

had been appointed to conduct an enquiry, with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer had not examined any of

the official witnesses and no document had been marked, as exhibit. The enquiry had been conducted, without following the procedures

established by law. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had given his finding stating that, out of the twelve charges levelled against the

petitioner, Charge Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, had been proved.

Based on the enquiry report, the punishing authority had issued a memo to the petitioner, along with the enquiry report. The petitioner had

submitted his explanation with regard to the enquiry report. Thereafter, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner to offer his

explanation, with regard to the proposed penalty of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. The petitioner had submitted his

explanation with regard to the penalty proposed. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of

increment for one year, with cumulative effect, had been imposed on the petitioner, vide Government Order, in G.O.Ms. No. 295, Municipal

Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 1.7.1999. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent, dated 1.7.1999, the petitioner had

preferred a review petition, on 10.11.1999, which is still pending before the Government.

The main contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year,

with cumulative effect, passed by the respondent, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16of the

Constitution of India. The enquiry officer had not conducted the enquiry, in accordance with the procedures established by law. No document had

been marked and no witness was examined during the enquiry. However, the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the charges in Charge

Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 had been proved. Further, the enquiry officer had not allowed the petitioner to examine his own witness. The

explanations submitted by the petitioner had not been considered, either by the enquiry officer or by the punishing authority. In such circumstances,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that a Government Order, in G.O.(D) No. 264, Municipal

Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, dated 10.7.2002, had been issued, rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner

against the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order, dated 10.7.2002, issued in G.O.(D) No. 264,

Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, is liable to be set aside, as it does not give any reason to justify the impugned

order of the respondent, imposing the punishment on the petitioner. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Government Order, in G.O.(D) No. 264,

Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, dated 10.7.2002, are as follows:

Aggrieved by the above orders, Thiru. G. Karunagaran has submitted his appeal petition through Commissioner of Municipal Administration.

The appeal has been taken up as review petition, since final orders on the disciplinary action has been passed by the Government.

In his review petition Thiru. G. Karunagaram has not substantiated valid reasons and evidences against the findings of the Enquiry officer. The

accused officer has repeated whatever he had stated in his earlier replies to the charge memo and has not adduced any valid reasons against the

findings of the Enquiry Officer.

The review petition of Thiru.G.Karunagaran has been examined carefully and independently with reference to the relevant records. Since the

appellant has not adduced due fresh grounds for acquitting him of the charges, the Government have decided to reject the review petition and have

ordered accordingly.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent, it is clear that the respondent

had passed an order, dated 10.7.2002, in G.O.(D) No. 264, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME3) Department, rejecting the review

petition filed by the petitioner. No reasons have been given by the respondent for rejecting the review petition of the petitioner, except saying that

the petitioner has not substantiated his claims in the review petition, with valid reasons and evidence. Since the order, dated 10.7.2002, is a non-

speaking order, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, on

merits and in accordance with law, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

In view of the order passed by this Court, in W.P. No. 888 of 2006, the writ petition in W.P. No. 899 of 2006 stands closed. However, it is

would be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter, with regard to his promotion, before the authorities concerned, seeking appropriate reliefs, as

and when final orders are passed quashing the charges levelled against the petitioner.