K. Chindhanai Selvam vs The State Information Commissioner and Others

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 that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and

quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 12.12.2011, and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the recommendation of

the second respondent made in his proceedings, dated 7.6.2010.

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that inspite of a detailed written explanation, dated 5.5.2010, having been submitted by

the petitioner, giving sufficient reasons for the non-furnishing of the required information, the first respondent has passed an order, dated

12.12.2011, recommending the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner.

It has been stated that the first respondent has not even referred to the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, while passing the

impugned proceedings. It had been further stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned proceedings in a cryptic manner, without giving

sufficient reasons for recommending the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner.

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents concerned had not been able to show that the first respondent had passed the

impugned proceedings after considering the detailed explanation, submitted by the petitioner, dated 5.5.2010. Thus, it is clear that the first

respondent had passed the impugned proceedings, without considering the reasons contained in the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In

view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and on a perusal of the records available, this court is of the

considered view that the first respondent has passed the impugned proceedings, without considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in his

written explanation, dated 5.5.2010. It is also noted that the recommendation of the first respondent for the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner would result in certain civil consequences, as held by the Supreme court in its decision, in Manohar Anchule Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another, . As such, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated

12.12.2011, and to remit the matter back to the first respondent to consider the explanation, submitted by the petitioner, dated 5.5.2010, and to

pass an appropriate speaking order, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.