AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The Petitioner, who is working as Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, is challenging the Government
Order issued in G.O. Ms(2T) No. 133, Co-Operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 27.11.2008, imposing the punishment
of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect, which will not affect the pension.
The case of the Petitioner is that from 1990 the Petitioner is serving in the Co-operative department without any blemish and he worked as Joint
Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Karur Region from 12.9.2003 to 2.2.2006. After transfer, on 9.12.2006 he was issued with a charge memo
containing five charges which were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Petitioner
submitted his explanation and denied the charges. The said explanation having been found not satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who
submitted a report holding that after conducting detailed enquiry all the charges were proved. After the receipt of the Enquiry Officer''s report, the
Petitioner was asked to submit his remarks and he submitted the same on 28.4.2007 and thereafter the impugned order of withholding increment
for one year without cumulative effect was passed. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the charges framed were
vague; enquiry was conducted in a biased manner; the impugned order is a non-speaking order; the explanation furnished by the Petitioner was not
considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Punishing Authority; and the explanation submitted for the remarks for the Enquiry Officer''s
report was not considered.
The Respondents have filed counter affidavit by stating that even before imposing this punishment, there were three punishments were inflicted
against the Petitioner i.e, (i) by order dated 3.2.2005 a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect; (ii) by
order dated 19.5.2005 punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect; and (iii) by order dated 23.2.2006
punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect. The charge memo was issued on 9.1.2006 and the Petitioner has
wrongly quoted the date as 9.12.2006. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 21.2.2006. After going through the explanation submitted by the
Petitioner on 31.1.2006, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 1.8.2006. Remarks were called for on 3.4.2007, which was received by the
Petitioner on 17.4.2007. Report/remarks was submitted by the Petitioner on 28.4.2007 and the impugned order of punishment was passed on
27.11.2008. The Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 28.6.2006 and deposed that he had already submitted explanation on
31.1.2006 and there is no further explanation to offer during the enquiry. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner expressed his
satisfaction regarding the conduct of the enquiry and he also signed in the enquiry proceedings and recorded his satisfaction to that effect. Based on
the proven charges, a lenient punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect was imposed. The said decision was
taken after following the mandatory procedures and the principles of natural justice and there is no illegality in the said order.
Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was having a meritorious service and he was issued
with merit certificates and this punishment is affecting his promotional rights even though punishment of withholding of increment for one year
without cumulative effect if imposed. The learned Counsel also submitted that in the explanation submitted by the Petitioner he has given convincing
reasons in respect of each and every charge. The said aspects were not considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority and
therefore the punishment imposed is without any material and non-application of mind.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents on the other hand submitted that the Petitioner who is a responsible officer
has not taken note of sending the report to the District Collector for several petitions, nine of which were forwarded by the Chief Minister''s
Special Cell and 38 were forwarded by the District Collector during the grievance days and the said deficiency/dereliction in work, justified the
imposition of punishment, even assuming other charges are not serious enough. The learned Counsel also submitted that the punishment imposed is
also lenient which is proportionate to the charges proved and therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the said order of punishment by this
Court.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the
Respondents.
The translated version of the charges leveled against the Petitioner reads as follows:
Petitioner did not participate in the annual inspection meeting relating to Public Distribution System, conducted by the District Collector, Karur
and also in the meetings such as Small Savings Scheme, Flag Day and SGRY held at the District level.
He, in his capacity as the Joint Registrar, Karur Region, did not participate in the function relating to the Distribution of Family cards,
inaugurated by the Minister for Backward Classes Welfare Department on 2.7.2005 in Karur District.
He has not sent report to the District Collector for more than one month for all the 9 petitions which has been received from the Chief Minister''s
Special Cell and forwarded by the District Collector seeking for report.
Report was not sent to the District Collector for more than one month in respect of the 38 petitions received on Grievance Redresses days and
thus has been pending. Among which, two petitions are pending for more than six months. He was lethargic in sending replies to the petitions
received on Grievance Redresses Days.
Out of the target of Rs. 4 crores fixed for Joint Registrar, Karur Region, for Small Savings Scheme collection, he has achieved only Rs. 1.26
crores.
The first charge is defended by the Petitioner by stating that he was handicapped with shortage of person working under him. Out of four
Deputy Registrars sanctioned to assist him, only one Deputy Registrar was available and therefore due to the pressure of work the Petitioner was
not able to attend some of the weekly review meetings. Petitioner deputed a able officer, fully informed of, to attend the review meetings and
therefore there was no wanton lapse on the part of the Petitioner.
Regarding the second charge, the Petitioner replied that the function for distribution of family cards by the Minister for Backward Classes took
place on 2.7.2005 and the Petitioner was on leave from 26.6.2005 to 2.7.2005 and the leave was also sanctioned. Therefore he was not aware of
the function organised on 2.7.2005.
As far as the third charge is concerned, regarding non-attending the nine petitions forwarded by the District Collector received from the Chief
Minister''s Cell, the charge is not specific about the complaints and the Enquiry Officer has not verified the dates of the petition received/forwarded
to the Petitioner by the District Collector.
The 4th charge is denied by the Petitioner stating that he sent reports to the District Collector to 38 petitions with the assistance of his
subordinates and only 15 petitions were not attended and the same is also noted by the Enquiry Officer in his findings.
As to the allegation that the Petitioner has not reached the target for small savings scheme, the said work is an extra work and during the
previous year he could collect Rs. 340 lakhs which was Rs. 90 lakhs excess than the target fixed for that year. It is also stated that the Petitioner
requested to reduce the target as he has achieved more than 75% of the target fixed.
The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved. The same was also accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after getting the remarks
from the Petitioner. Even though the explanation given by the Petitioner for the charges regarding non-attending of Minister''s function and the
Collectors review meetings and not reaching the target of small savings collection, are acceptable, charge Nos. 3 and 4 are bound to be attended
to by the Petitioner, who was responsible for answering the complaints forwarded by the Chief Minister''s Special Cell through the District
Collector. Similarly not attending the petitions forwarded by the District Collector received by him on the grievance days, which was also admitted
by the petitioner are dereliction of duties.
The Government issued orders to all the officers to redress the grievance petitions within two months in G.O. Ms. No. 114, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (A) Department, dated 2.8.2006 reiterating its earlier decisions. The said order reads as follows:
Petitions-Petitions presented to Government Officers-Procedures for dealing with grievance petitions
'' Instructions '' Issued.
------------------------------------------------
Personnel and Administrative Reforms(A) Department
G.O.Ms.No.114 Dated 2.8.2006
Read :
G.O.Ms.No.66, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (A) Department,
dated 23.2.1993.
G.O.Ms.No.89, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (A)
Department, dated 13.5.1999.
From the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, New Delhi,
D.O.No.G-13013/1/2006-PG, dt. 5.5.2006.
ORDER
In the Government Order first read above, instructions regarding acknowledging petitions given to the Government Offices/Officers in person
were issued to all Government Officers. In the Government Order second read above, the Government issued instructions regarding the procedure
for dealing with petitions.
In the Government of India D.O. Letter third read above, it has been suggested that an acknowledgment to the complainant should be sent
within three days of the receipt of the grievance and the grievance itself should be redressed within a maximum period of two months of its receipt.
Based on the D.O. Letter received from Government of India third read above, the Government modify the instructions issued in the
Government Orders read above as follows:
An acknowledgment should go immediately and at the most within three days of the receipt of grievance petitions.
Grievance itself should be redressed within a maximum period of two months of its receipt.
The citizens approaching the Government departments with their grievance petitions should be informed of the progress of his/her grievance.
If a particular grievance is expected to take longer than two months for its finalization, an interim reply should invariably be sent.
In case, it is not found feasible to accede to his/her request, a reasoned reply may be issued to the aggrieved citizen within the stipulated time
limit of two months.
Necessary amendments to Secretariat Office Manual and Tamil Nadu Government Office Manual will be issued separately. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, is requested to send necessary draft amendment to Tamil Nadu Government Office
Manual.
(By Order Of The Governor)
L.K. Tripathy
Chief Secretary To Government
From the above narrated Government Order, it is evident that the department is bound to dispose of the grievance petitions within two or at
the maximum three months. By not attending the grievance petitions, the obligation/duty is not fulfilled. Thus, the said charges are made out. The
accountability of the officer performing public duty is explained by the Honorable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (3) L.W. 421
(Eureka Forbes Limited v. Allahabad Bank and Ors.). In paragraphs 44 and 45, it is held thus:
... The concept of public accountability and performance of functions takes in its ambit proper and timely action in accordance with law. Public
duty and public obligation both are essentials of good administration whether by the State instrumentalities and/or by the financial institutions. In the
case of Center for Public Interest Litigation and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , this Court declared the dictum that State actions
causing loss are actionable under public law and this is as a result of innovation to a new tool with the court, which are the protectors of civil liberty
of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in
State action even in the case of appointment, which essentially must not lack bonafide was enforced by the Court. All these principles enunciated
by the Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that public officers are answerable both for their inaction and irresponsible actions. What
ought to have been done, if not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers then alone the real public purpose of an answerable
administration would be satisfied.
The doctrine of full faith and credit applies to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or
performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is known
fact that, in transactions of the Government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels
(Refer: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Food Corporation of India (2004) 13 SCC 53.
Principle of public accountability is applicable to such officers/officials with all its vigour. Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to
be just and fair. The dimensions of administrative law permit judicial intervention in decisions, though of administrative nature, but are ex facie
discriminatory. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of public duties can result in varied defects not only in the decision making
process but in the decision as well. Every public officer is accountable for its decision and actions to the public in the larger interest and to the State
Administration in its governance. ...
The first Respondent considered the gravity of the charges including the charge Nos. 3 and 4 and thought fit to impose a lenient punishment of
withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect, that too without affecting the pension. The said punishment imposed cannot be
treated as un proportionate to the gravity of the allegation, particularly charge Nos. 3 and 4. Even accepting the explanation of the Petitioner for
charges 1, 2 and 5, the first Respondent is justified in imposing punishment in respect of charge Nos.3 and 4.
The Petitioner was also punished for minor delinquencies on three earlier occasions i.e, (i) by order dated 3.2.2005 the punishment of
stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect; (ii) by order dated 19.5.2005 punishment of stoppage of increment for six
months without cumulative effect; and (iii) on 23.2.2006 punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect.
Taking into consideration the overall aspects and the principle behind the order of the Honorable Supreme Court cited supra, I am of the view
that the impugned order passed by the first Respondent is just and proper, requiring no interference.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.