AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—The Petitioner - an Assistant Engineer in the Respondent Corporation seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the
records of the third Respondent in respect of the order bearing No. 173/4699/DL3/SETC/2000 dated 20.09.2000 dismissing the Appeal
preferred by the Petitioner against the punishment of imposing stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and to quash the same.
During September 1995, the Petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Recondition Unit of the Respondent Corporation located at M.G.R.
Depot Complex, Head Office, Madras. After issuance of Charge Memo, Enquiry and Final Order, he was transferred to Madurai during July
2000.
Back Ground Facts : - The Petitioner was charged for allegedly handing over 150 fuel injector nozzles instead of 120 nozzles to M/s. Mohan
Fuel Injection Service for recondition work on 28.04.1999. The Petitioner was suspended from service by the order dated 03.05.1999. Levelling
eleven charges against the Petitioner, Charge Memo was issued him on 05.05.1999. The Petitioner has tendered his explanation on 11.05.1999.
Along with the Petitioner, one Junior Tradesman Mr. Gouthaman, who had delivered 150 nozzles was also given a charge Memo levelling five
charges against him. In the enquiry against the Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of eight charges levelled against him. In the
separate enquiry held, the Junior Tradesman was absolved of all the charges levelled against him.
A Second Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.1999 was served on him on 30.08.1999 seeking his explanation for the proposed punishment of
dismissal from service. He has submitted his explanation on 04.09.1999 and the same was acknowledged by the Disciplinary Authority on
06.09.1999. The Disciplinary Authority revoked the suspension order and after seven months, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of
punishment by the Impugned Order dated 20.09.2000 imposing the punishment of Stoppage of Increment for one year without cumulative effect.
As against the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, the Petitioner preferred the Appeal before the Third
Respondent and the Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the explanation given by the Petitioner is not acceptable.
Stating that the Petitioner had unauthorisedly allowed an outsider to take out 30 nozzles in excess of 120 nozzles mentioned in DSSR, the
Respondent Corporation has filed the Counter Affidavit contending that sufficient opportunities were provided to the Petitioner during the course of
Disciplinary Authority and in the Enquiry. It is further stated that the Petitioner was issued with Second Show Cause Notice for dismissal and upon
consideration of his explanation, the Respondent Corporation has taken a lenient view and the punishment of dismissal was modified as stoppage
of Increment for one year without cumulative effect.
Contending that fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Petitioner inter-alia raised the following
contentions:
Charge Memo was issued against both the Petitioner and Junior Tradesman - Gowthaman and without valid grounds, the Department held two
independent enquiry and the Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of hearing cross-examining the witnesses who were examined in the
enquiry proceedings initiated against Junior Tradesman - Gowthaman;
While the Enquiry Officer absolved the Junior Tradesman from all the charges, the Authority was not justified in imposing punishment upon the
Petitioner alone;
The Appellate Authority had not properly considered the points urged by the Petitioner and no valid reasons are assigned for rejecting the
Petitioner''s Appeal.
Countering the arguments, learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Petitioner was responsible officer, who was in charge of
reconditioning unit and when the discrepancy was brought to his notice, the Petitioner without enquiring the same proceeded to correct DSSR.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that only the Petitioner was in direct control of Nozzles and Junior Tradesman was no way
responsible and the Enquiry Officer rightly absolved the Junior Tradesman of the charges.
The Respondent Corporation operates long distance buses from various parts of Tamil Nadu to the important places of adjoining States in Tamil
Nadu. The Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Corporation and he was posted to perform duty as incharge of Reconditioning Unit
of the Corporation. Some of the spare parts of the Reconditioning units were entrusted to outside agency for the purpose of Reconditioning. Any
material or property of the Corporation intended to be taken out from the premises of the Corporation is to be done with the permission of the
Officer in charge of the Unit through a DSSR with a permission slip for taking out the materials. On 28.04.1999, the Petitioner had permitted to
take out the fuel injection nozzles and some other materials for getting the materials Reconditioned through a Out Side Private Agency viz., Mohan
Fuel Injection Services Co., by making entry in the DSSR and gate pass through a person. As per the rules, the Security Personnel of the
Corporation verified the materials taken out with the DSSR at the depot Gate. On verification of the number of items taken out with the DSSR, it
was found by the Security Personnel that the person who had carried out the material was keeping 150 nozzles as against the 120 Nozzles
mentioned in the DSSR.
On finding that the person was carrying 150 nozzles as against the permitted number of 120 nozzles, the Security Personnel informed the same
to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is said to have rushed to the Gate and corrected the nozzles as 150 i.e., the Petitioner is said to have corrected the
number of Nozzles with 150 number in DSSR. Since the Petitioner was incharge of the reconditioning Unit entrusted with the responsible position,
charge was framed against him. He was also placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Against the Petitioner, a detailed enquiry was
conducted by a retired District Judge.
For the same act of lifting excess nozzles, separate Memorandum of Charges were issued to the Petitioner and to the Junior Tradesman and
two enquiry were held. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Department was not justified in conducting two independent enquiry on the same
alleged misconduct. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that because of the independent enquiry, the Petitioner had been prejudiced
and that he had no opportunity of knowing what has been spoken against the Petitioner in the other enquiry and the Petitioner has been deprived of
opportunity of effectively defending himself. This contention does not merit acceptance. The responsibility of the Petitioner and the responsibility of
the Junior Tradesman were entirely different. Since the set of responsibilities were different, the enquiry could not have been clubbed. That apart,
the enquiry proceedings was initiated in May 1999. Even at that time, the Petitioner has not raised any objection for holding two different enquiry.
The Petitioner waited till the conclusion of the enquiry and also imposing of the Punishment and thereafter till the appeal was rejected. Having not
raised any objection for conducting two different enquiry in the initial stages, it is not open to the Petitioner to raise objection at this stage.
The contention of the Petitioner that the Junior Tradesman has been absolved of the charges and whereas the Petitioner was unjustifiably
punished is motivated. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner was the responsible officer, who was in charge of the Reconditioning unit. The Junior
Tradesman was the Junior most officer in the lower hierarchy. Junior Tradesman has neither signed in the DSSR nor in other relevant records. The
Enquiry Officer has found that Junior Tradesman has only acted upon the instructions of the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner that Junior
Tradesman was in direct control has no force. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, only the Petitioner has signed in the DSSR and the Registers
- M3 to M5. The technical workers have not affixed their signatures. Further, only the Petitioner as the Assistant Engineer has signed in the place
marked as ""Store Control"" and at the column marked as ""Releasor of Articles"". Referring to the signature of the Petitioner in the relevant
document, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner responsible for lifting up of excess nozzles. The Enquiry Officer has also pointed out the
conduct of the Petitioner in not reacting to the discrepancy in the number of Nozzles and that instead of verifying the discrepancy, the Petitioner
had only proceeded to correct DSSR. Though this Court is not proposed to go into the adequacy or inadequacy of the materials before the
Enquiry Officer, the above aspects are referred only for the purpose of pointing out that only the Petitioner was directly responsible for the
reconditioning unit and for releasing of the Nozzles. It cannot be said that the Petitioner was singled out and he was found guilty unjustifiably.
The contention of the Petitioner is that his Appeal was rejected without assigning any valid reasons. The Enquiry Officer was a Retired District
Judge. By elaborately discussing the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case and drawing inferences, the Enquiry Officer found that
the charges against the Petitioner are proved. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was given to the Petitioner and he was asked to show cause for
the punishment of termination of service. In response to the show cause notice, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation. In consideration of the
same, the Respondents had taken the lenient view by imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. By
going through all the records particularly, the Report of the Officer, the Appellate Authority / Third Respondent might have subjectively satisfied
about the findings thereon. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity on the ground of ''non-speaking'' order.
In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao, , the Supreme Court has held thus:
...The High Court is not constituted in a proceedings under Article 226 a Court of Appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry and it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether rules of natural justice are violated or not. Where there are some evidence, which the authority
entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty
of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court under Article 226 to review the evidence and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But, the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is
otherwise properly held, the sole Judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or
reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article
226 of the Constitution....
By consideration of the facts and the enquiry held against the Petitioner, it is seen that the Departmental enquiry was held in accordance with
the Rules observing the principles of natural Justice. The enquiry officer was an independent officer viz., a Retired District Judge. For the grave
misconduct of unauthorised lifting of 30 nozzles in excess, the Petitioner was imposed a mild punishment of stoppage of increment for one year
without cumulative effect. The Respondent Corporation has taken extreme lenient view and has imposed a very moderate punishment. It cannot be
said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence warranting exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.