M. Pugalendran vs The Commissioner

K.K. Sasidharan, J.—This Writ Petition is directed against the charge memo dated 19.08.2013, whereby and whereunder, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on account of his submission of an incorrect report with regard to the date of last Kumbhabishegam and condition of the temple.

BRIEF FACTS:

While the petitioner was functioning as Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the Manager of Arulmighu Sama Vediswarar Temple received a telephonic call from the office of the respondent, calling for information as to when Kumbhabishegam of the said temple was performed. The petitioner was out of station. The Manager prepared the reply and it was sent to the respondent in the name of the petitioner through E-mail on 08.07.2013. While typing the message, the date of Kumbhabishegam was mentioned as ''06.07.2013'' instead of ''06.07.2003''. It was obviously a mistake. The respondent, thereafter, issued the impugned charge memo dated 19.08.2013. The petitioner submitted his reply on 05.09.2013. The petitioner challenges the charge memo on the primary ground that the respondent erred in initiating disciplinary proceedings on a flimsy ground.

The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was contended that the petitioner submitted an incorrect report to the effect that the temple is in an excellent condition and there is no need for renovation. The respondent submitted a report to the Secretary to Government, on the basis of the said incorrect report. Subsequently, the Secretary to Government inspected the temple in question on 04.08.2013 and it was found that Kumbhabishegam was not performed since 2003. The Secretary to Government instructed the respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo was issued.

SUBMISSIONS:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was out of station and the report was given only by the Manager, though it is true that the report was made in his name. According to the learned counsel, the date was incorrectly given and the same is evident from the fact that in the reply given on 08.07.2013, the last date of Kumbhabishegam was mentioned as ''06.07.2013'' instead of ''06.07.2003''. The incorrect description of date was not such a serious matter to take disciplinary action against the officer.

The learned Special Government Pleader justified the impugned charge memo. According to him, the petitioner, without ascertaining the factual position, submitted an incorrect report, which made the Department to place a wrong picture of the temple before the Government. The respondent was, therefore, right in initiating proceedings against the petitioner.

DISCUSSION:

The respondent issued the impugned charge memo to the petitioner calling upon his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, on account of the incorrect report submitted to the Department with regard to Kumbhabishegam. The petitioner has already submitted a reply on 05.09.2013. The petitioner has taken up a very substantial contention that he was out of station at that point of time and the incorrect report was prepared only by the Manager of the temple. However, the fact remains that the report was made in the name of the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation as to why he was not responsible for the incorrect information furnished by the Manager. The petitioner, in the said report, indicated that the temple is in a good condition. It must be the view of the Manager on the basis of the present condition of the temple. All these aspects required to be considered by the respondent in his capacity as the disciplinary authority. The respondent is yet to proceed further. Before taking further action, pursuant to the charge memo, necessarily, the explanation submitted by the petitioner should be considered by the respondent with an open mind.

The respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and take a decision as to whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the charge memo dated 19.08.2013 should be continued against the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.