AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner had joined in service in the Transport Department, as Motor vehicles Inspector Grade-II, on 26.9.1977. He was promoted as
Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I, in the year 1984. He was due for promotion as a Regional Transport Officer during the years 1995-1996.
While so, the Transport Commissioner, the second respondent herein, had issued a charge memo in his Letter No. 6685/T3/94, dated 18.2.1994,
under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The charges framed against the petitioner were as
follows:
that you have not intimated the fact that your son Arun has joined as partner of Uma Textiles though he is aged only two years.
that you have not intimated the fact that your wife is a partner in the Rajalakshmi Transport Service as required u/s 8(1)(b) of the Government
Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 31.3.1995, denying the charges levelled against him. Further, the petitioner had also submitted
another explanation to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Madurai, on 20.6.1996, on the basis of G.O.3158, dated 7.9.1974. However, an
enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer had
concluded his enquiry, on 30.6.1996, and he had submitted his enquiry report. On 22.10.1996, the Transport Commissioner, disagreeing with the
findings of the enquiry officer had directed the petitioner to submit a further explanation on the enquiry report. The petitioner had submitted his
explanation, on 6.1.1997. On 25.2.1997, the Transport Commissioner had ordered a fresh oral enquiry, following the procedures contemplated
under Rule 17(b). The petitioner had participated in the oral enquiry and he had defended himself against the charges levelled against him. Based
on the findings of the enquiry officer, the Transport Commissioner had passed final orders, on 9.2.1999, dropping the first charge framed against
the petitioner and had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner,
based on the second charge. Due to the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he had been denied the promotion as Regional Transport Officer,
from the year 1995 upto the year 2000. Aggrieved by the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he had preferred an appeal to the Government,
on 7.4.1999. However, the Government had rejected the appeal, by an order in G.O.(D) No. 1018, dated 9.11.2000, and it had confirmed the
punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Transport Commissioner. Since the order of the Government is a non-speaking order, it is liable to be
quashed.
In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the averments and allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated
that based on the charges levelled against the petitioner an enquiry had been conducted by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his
case. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner had submitted his explanations. Since the Transport Commissioner, the second respondent herein,
had found that the second charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved, he had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a
period of one year, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the first respondent had been dismissed.
It has been further stated that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was in accordance with the procedures established by law, and it was
conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to put forth his case. However, as the
second charge had been found to be proved he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect,
by the second respondent. The appellate order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent is in accordance with law.
Even though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had raised various grounds while contending that the impugned orders of the
respondents are arbitrary, illegal and void, he had submitted that it would suffice if this Court is pleased to set aside the order of the appellate
authority, the first respondent herein, dated 9.11.2000, confirming the order of the second respondent, imposing the punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year, without cumulative effect, as it is a non-speaking order and if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass an
order, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is seen that the appellate
order of the first respondent, dated 9.11.2000, is a non-speaking order. No reasons have been given by the first respondent while passing the said
order. The first respondent had passed the order in G.O.(D) No. 1018, Home (Transport-II) Department, dated 9.11.2000, only on the basis of
the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. However, no reasons have been given based on which the said order had been passed.
Since it is a non-speaking order, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to pass orders, afresh, on the appeal of the
first respondent, dated 7.4.1999, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.