S. Vasudevan vs The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner was formerly working as Assistant Secretary in Q-954 Sambakkulam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, which is a cooperative Society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The said society issued a charge memorandum to the petitioner on 10.07.2000, levelling as many as eight charges. On 19.08.2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. But, without holding any enquiry, and without affording any opportunity, the 2nd respondent, by order dated 06.12.2000, terminated the petitioner from service. Further, a copy of the termination order was not issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8194 of 2004 before the Principal Bench of this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to furnish a copy of the termination order dated 06.12.2000. That writ petition was disposed of on 30.03.2004, issuing such a direction. In pursuance of the same, a copy of the termination order was furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition in W.P. No. 10544 of 2004, challenging the said order of termination. This Court, by order dated 04.04.2006, declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had alternative remedy to work out against the said order of termination. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to work-out his remedies by filing a revision before the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a revision before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram. The Joint Register, by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 3015/2006/sa.pa., dated 29.05.2006, dismissed the revision. As against the same, the petitioner filed a Review before the Government. Having considered the same, the Government by order in G.O.2(D) No. 120, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18.12.2007, modified the order, thereby setting aside the order of termination and instead imposing a punishment of reduction in rank by one stage, i.e. reverting the petitioner to the post of Clerk. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records, carefully.

Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused his argument on the ground that the impugned order of termination from service was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. He would further point out that though an enquiry officer was appointed, the enquiry officer did not examine the witnesses in the presence of the petitioner and the enquiry officer did not allow the witnesses to be cross-examined by the petitioner. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the enquiry was held like an ex-parte enquiry and findings were arrived at by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned order of termination, which was later on modified by the Government, has to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would further submit that the Revisional Authority, namely the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and the said order of the Joint Registrar is also a non-speaking order. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside.

In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner did not submit any objection for the charges. Though he was given an opportunity, the petitioner did not utilise the same to cross-examine any witness and thus the enquiry was held by following the procedure established by law, it is contended. It is also stated that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry. It is further stated that all the materials, including the report of the Enquiry Officer was considered by the disciplinary authority, revisional authority as well as the Government and only thereafter punishment was imposed. Thus, according to the respondents, the impugned order of the Government does not require any interference at all.

I have considered the above submissions.

A perusal of the records would go to show that the Enquiry Officer did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. It is evident that the witnesses were examined in the absence of the petitioner. Further the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to challenge the oral evidence let in by the witnesses. Thus, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. As it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry as though he was conducting an ex-parte enquiry. The findings given by him are also not supported by any valid evidence. In such view of the matter, I have to necessarily hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, are liable to be set aside because the enquiry was not held fairly and properly, by following the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of termination, which was modified by the Government into one of reduction in rank by one stage, is liable to be set aside. While doing so, this Court has to necessarily give liberty to the second respondent to appoint a fresh enquiry officer to hold a fresh enquiry, by following the procedure established by law and then to pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary proceedings, if so advised.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of termination, terminating the petitioner from service which was modified by the Government into one of reduction in rank by one stage is set aside. However, liberty is given to the second respondent to appoint a fresh enquiry officer to hold an enquiry, afresh into the charges and then to pass appropriate orders, by following the procedure established by law, if so advised. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since I am interfering with the punishment on technical grounds, I do not wish to express any opinion in respect of other grounds raised in the writ petition. It is open for the petitioner to raise all the grounds at the time of enquiry. No costs.