AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
respondents. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first
respondent, dated 28.6.2011, and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.1.2008, and consequently, direct the first respondent to
settle the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner.
It has been stated that the petitioner had been working as an Executive Officer in the third respondent Town Panchayat, from the month of
February, 2002. On 30.6.2005, which was his last day in service, he had been placed under suspension and a charge memo, dated 29.6.2005,
had been issued to him, containing eight charges. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had issued 53 ''No objection'' certificates, in
respect of a number of plots in the unapproved layout, in consolidated Survey No. 90/1B3, on 26.7.2002. The second charge against the
petitioner was that he had issued ''No objection'' certificates, in respect of the plots having an extent of 702 square feet, contrary to the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which contemplates that the plots should have a minimum extent of 900 square feet.
The third charge against the petitioner is that he had failed to collect the development charges, at the rate of Rs. 6.50 per square feet in respect of
the 53 plots relating to which he had issued the ''No objection'' certificates, causing a revenue loss to the State Government, to the extent of Rs.
8,15,724/-. The fourth charge is that the petitioner had not collected an amount of Rs. 3,63,000/-, from the promoter of the layout in question,
causing revenue loss to the third respondent. The fifth charge was that he had not issued ''Account payee'' cheques to certain third parties, even
though the cheque amount was above Rs. 500/-. The sixth charge levelled against the petitioner was that the accounts had not been finalized for the
year 2004-2005, till 15.5.2005. The seventh charge was that the petitioner had not properly maintained the demand registers for tax and non-
taxable items. The eighth charge was that he had failed in his duties and responsibilities.
It has been stated that the first respondent had ordered the regularization of unapproved layouts and deviated constructions, in the various
Corporations, Municipalities, Town Panchayats and in other local bodies, by way of a government order in G.O.(Ms) No. 130, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated 3.6.1999. Elaborate guidelines had been issued to the local bodies for
implementing the said scheme. The power to regularize the unapproved layouts had been entrusted to the local bodies concerned, with certain
conditions stipulated in the said government order. However, the order issued by the State government, on 3.6.1999, had been reconsidered,
based on the representations received from the general public. Thereafter, the State government had issued certain orders, including the
government orders, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated 1.2.2001 and G.O.
(Ms.) No. 26, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.2.2001, and the government letter, in Letter No.
33165/MA.1/2001-3, dated 20.3.2002.
It had been further stated that the State government had issued the government order, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated 1.2.2001, directing that the scheme of regularization would be applicable to all those unapproved
layouts, wherein atleast 50% of the plots had been sold, or wherein buildings had been constructed, prior to 22.9.2000. The guidelines issued by
the State Government had been amended, subsequently, by the proceedings, dated 20.3.2002, amending certain clauses in the government order,
dated 1.2.2001. In such circumstances the owners of the combined Survey No. 90/1B3, Pottaneri Nallagoundan Patty Village, had submitted an
application, dated 21.6.2002, seeking regularization of the layout in the said survey number.
It had been further pointed out that the total extent of land in the combined Survey No. 90/1B3, Pottaneri Nallagoundan Patty Village, was 2
acres and 71 cents. Houses had been constructed in many of the plots in the said layout and they had been assessed by the third respondent, for
the purpose of payment of property tax. The request of the owners of the land, in combined Survey No. 90/1B3, had been placed before the
Council of the third respondent Town Panchayat. The request of the owners of the land had been considered by the Council and it had been
resolved, by a Resolution No. 95(7), dated 1.7.2002, that the layout may be regularized by collecting the regularization fee, at the rate of Rs. 0.30
per square meter. It had also been resolved to issued ''No objection'' certificates for the sale of the remaining plots. Only in such circumstances, the
petitioner had issued the ''No objection'' certificates to the individual purchasers of the plots in the layout concerned.
It had been further stated that the petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 19.9.2005, denying the charges levelled against him. However,
the second respondent had appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. After the
completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted his report, dated 5.5.2006. The enquiry officer had held that charge numbers 1 to 4
had not been proved and that charge numbers 5 to 8 had been proved. While charge numbers 1 to 4 were grievous in nature, charge numbers 5 to
8 were not serious in nature. The second respondent disciplinary authority, had accepted the report of the enquiry officer and had asked the
petitioner to submit his further explanation on the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner had submitted his further explanation, dated
24.7.2006. Since the enquiry officer had held that charge numbers 1 to 4 had not been proved, the said finding of the enquiry officer had been
accepted by the second respondent. With regard to charge numbers 5 to 8 the petitioner had stated that, as the works concerned had related to
public health and as they had to be executed, expeditiously, open cheques had been issued to the parties concerned. However, there is no
irregularity or financial loss to the third respondent Town Panchayat, in respect of the said works. Further, due to the lack of qualified staff in the
third respondent Town Panchayat, proper book keeping system had not been followed. The new system of accounting, based upon book keeping
system, had not been followed properly. Therefore, there has been some delay in preparing the financial report. Since the petitioner had been
suspended, on 30.6.2005, the financial report had been submitted by his successor, on 15.7.2005. However, there was no irregularity committed
by the petitioner in the filing of the financial report and there was no financial loss to the third respondent Town Panchayat.
It had been further stated that the petitioner had put in 38 years of unblemished service and he had discharged his duties and responsibilities,
diligently and honestly. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 7.6.2007, had
decided to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer, in respect of charge numbers 1 to 4. Accordingly, the second respondent had held that
charge numbers 1 to 4 had been proved, in spite of the fact that he had no further materials available before him to differ from the findings of the
enquiry officer, in respect of charge numbers 1 to 4. Further, the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to submit his explanation, in respect
of charge numbers 1 to 4. Thus, it is clear that the conclusions arrived at by the second respondent, holding that the charges levelled against the
petitioner had been proved, is contrary to law and the facts of the case. It is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances,
the petitioner had submitted a representation to the second respondent, dated 29.6.2007, requesting him to drop further proceedings against the
petitioner and to settle his pensionary benefits. However, the second respondent, by his order, dated 5.1.2008, had reiterated his earlier findings
and had held that charge numbers 1 to 4 had also been proved and he had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, dated 19.3.2008, before the first
respondent. The first respondent had rejected the appeal, in its order, in G.O.(D) No. 235, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP4)
Department, dated 28.6.2011, mechanically, without proper application of mind. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the petitioner had been asked to submit his written explanation
on the charges levelled against him. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, an enquiry officer had been appointed
for conducting an enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Even though the enquiry officer had held that charge numbers 1
to 4 had not been proved and that charge numbers 5 to 8 had been proved, the second respondent disciplinary authority had deviated from the
findings of the enquiry officer, in respect of charge numbers 1 to 4 and had held them to be proved. Thereafter, the petitioner had been given an
opportunity to submit a further statement of defence, on the proven charges. The petitioner had submitted his further statement of defence, on
29.6.2007. The explanation submitted by the petitioner had been examined with the original relevant records. On verification it had been found that
the depositions were not convincing. Therefore, the further explanation submitted by the petitioner had not been accepted and the second
respondent had found that all the eight charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Therefore, he had been imposed with the
punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent, after
consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as per regulation 18(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations,
1954. The first respondent had rejected the appeal, by its order, in G.O.(D) No. 235, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP4)
Department, dated 28.6.2011. Even though the petitioner had relied on the guidelines issued in the government orders, in G.O.(Ms) No. 130,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated 3.6.1999, and G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and
Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated 1.2.2001, it should be noted that the said government orders had undergone several changes.
Amended guidelines had been issued in, G.O.(Ms.) No. 134, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 29.9.2002. The
petitioner had failed to comply with the guidelines issued in the said government order and had also failed to collect the development charges. Due
to the action of the petitioner the State government, as well as the third respondent Panchayat had sustained considerable revenue loss. As such the
reasons given by the petitioner, for the irregularities committed by him, cannot be accepted. As the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is
devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted, inter alia, that the petitioner had acted in good faith, in view of the
guide lines issued by the first respondent, in the government orders, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee.
1) Department, dated 1.2.2001, and G.O.(Ms.) No. 26, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.2.2001, and the
government letter, in Letter No. 33165/MA.1/2001-3, dated 20.3.2002. He had further submitted that the enquiry officer appointed for
conducting an enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, had come to the conclusion that charge numbers 1 to 4 levelled
against the petitioner, which were serious in nature, had not been proved. While so, it would not be open to the second respondent to differ from
the said findings, without having sufficient materials to do so. The second respondent ought to have accepted the further explanation submitted by
the petitioner and the charges levelled against the petitioner ought to have been dropped. However, the second respondent, by his proceedings,
dated 7.6.2007, had held that charge numbers 1 to 4 had also been proved. In fact there has been a considerable delay in the issuance of the said
proceedings, by the second respondent. Further, the reasons stated by the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 7.6.2007, are not based
on the materials available on record. The finding of the second respondent that the petitioner had misguided the Council of the third respondent
Town Panchayat, in passing the resolution, dated 1.7.2002, had not been substantiated with sufficient evidence.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that there has been a total non-application of mind on the part of
the first and the second respondents in passing the impugned proceedings. The petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity to submit his
explanation to charge numbers 1 to 4, before final orders had been passed. The order passed by the first respondent, in G.O.(D) No. 235,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP4) Department, dated 28.6.2011, is also illegal, as the first respondent had not considered the
materials available on record, in their proper perspective. Further, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate in nature to the charges levelled against him.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of the supreme court in, Bank of India and Another Vs.
Degala Suryanarayana,
The law is well settled. The Disciplinary Authority on receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer may or may not agree with the findings
recorded by the latter. In case of disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and then to record his own
findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry and
report.
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the
delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at
a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in
departmental enquiry proceedings. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in
the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a
finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating
the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the
departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel the Constitution Bench has held:
the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the
evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This
approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned
conclusion follows or not.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the first and the
second respondents are liable to be sustained, as there is no irregularity or illegality in the issuance of such proceedings. There is no mala fide
intention in the passing of the said proceedings. The impugned proceedings of the first and the second respondents had been issued based on the
evidence available on record. The petitioner had caused serious financial loss by acting in a manner contrary to the guidelines issued by the State
government. Even though the enquiry officer had found that charge numbers 1 to 4, levelled against the petitioner, had not been proved and that
charge numbers 5 to 8 had been proved, based on the materials on record, the second respondent had differed from the findings of the enquiry
officer, in respect of his findings relating to charge numbers 1 to 4, taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case and in view
of the materials available. An opportunity had been given to the petitioner to submit his further explanation, since the further explanation submitted
by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent disciplinary authority had found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against
him. Accordingly, the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of
the records available, it is noted that eight charges had been levelled against the petitioner, by way of a charge memo, dated 29.6.2005. The
petitioner had submitted his explanation, dated 19.9.2005, denying the charges levelled against him. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner
was not satisfactory, the second respondent had appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the
petitioner. The enquiry officer had submitted his report, dated 5.5.2006, holding that charge numbers 1 to 4 had not been proved and that charge
numbers 5 to 8 had been proved. However, the second respondent disciplinary authority had differed from the conclusions arrived at by the
enquiry officer, in respect of charge numbers 1 to 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his further explanation, dated 24.7.2006. However,
the second respondent had not accepted the explanation submitted by the petitioner and he had held that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges
levelled against him, by way of the charge memo, dated 29.6.2005. The explanation submitted by the petitioner that he had acted in accordance
with the guidelines issued by the first respondent, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department,
dated 1.2.2001, and G.O.(Ms.) No. 26, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.2.2001, and the government letter, in
Letter No. 33165/MA.1/2001-3, dated 20.3.2002, had been rejected. The contention of the petitioner that he had acted based on the resolution
passed by the Council of the third respondent, dated 1.7.2002, had also been rejected by the second respondent.
It is also noted that the petitioner had challenged the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 5.1.2008, imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service on the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the first respondent, by its proceedings, dated
28.6.2011, issued in G.O.(D) No. 235, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP4) Department, after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission, as per Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954.
On a perusal of the records available before this Court it is noted that certain serious charges had been levelled against the petitioner relating to
the irregularities caused by him in issuing the ''No objection'' certificates, relating to 53 plots, in Survey No. 90/1B3, Pottaneri Nallagoundan Patty
Village. He had also failed to collect the development charges, in respect of the said plots, at the rate of Rs. 6.50, per square feet causing a loss of
Rs. 8,15,724/- and had also failed to collect an amount of Rs. 3,63,000/-, from the promoter of the plots in question.
It is also noted that certain cheques had been issued to third parties, without following proper procedures. The petitioner had not finalized the
accounts for the year 2004-2005, within the prescribed time limit. It has also been noted that the petitioner had not maintained the demand
registers of tax and non-taxable items. Accordingly, he had been found to have violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct
Rules, 1973. Even though the petitioner had submitted an explanation to the charges levelled against him, by way of a charge memo, dated
29.6.2005, the enquiry officer had found charge Nos. 5 to 8 had been proved. However, the second respondent disciplinary authority had come
to the conclusion, based on the materials available before him that charge numbers 1 to 4, levelled against the petitioner, had also been proved.
The further explanation submitted by the petitioner had not been found to be satisfactory in nature. Therefore, the second respondent had imposed
the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The proceedings issued by the second respondent, on 5.1.2008, had been confirmed by
the first respondent, in its proceedings, dated 28.6.2011.
In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that he had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself
cannot be accepted. Proper reasons have been given by the first and the second respondents in their impugned proceedings, while finding that the
petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is also noted that the petitioner had caused serious financial loss to the third respondent
Town Panchayat, by the irregularities committed by him. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings issued by the first and
second respondents are mala fide in nature. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he had followed the guide lines issued by the
government, in the government orders, in G.O.(Ms.) No. 16, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Naa. Nee. 1) Department, dated
1.2.2001, and G.O.(Ms.) No. 26, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 6.2.2001, and the resolution passed by the
Council of the third respondent Town Panchayat, cannot be accepted. However, it is noted that the guidelines issued by the first respondent in the
said government orders had been modified by the subsequent orders issued by the first respondent. It is also noted that principles of natural justice
had been substantially complied with, as the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against
him. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and
therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.