AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Sundresh, J.—The petitioner joined Bargur Panchayat on promotion as Assistant on 21.03.2007. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing four charges which are as follows:
Charge No. 1
As per the written statement, dated 20.07.2007 of Thiru. S. Vincent Sundaram, Animator, Infant Kolping Self Help Group, Vinnarasi Church, Kandhikuppam, it is known that only 103 IHHL have been constructed by them, whereas, a cheque for Rs. 1,23,600/- @ Rs.1,200/- per IHHL has been issued for 103 IHHL and thus made misappropriation of Government funds under TSC Scheme, by excess payment of Rs.1,08,000/- which is paid to the Block Development Officer (V.P.), Bargur in a bag. Out of this amount, the TSC Block Coordinator, Bargur had disbursed to other Self Help Groups and a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been paid to Thiru. V. Thangamani, Assistant, Panchayat Union, Bargur, as illegal gratification which is against the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.
Charge No. II
On verification of the following vouchers as samples, it is revealed that he has prepared the vouchers without following the due procedure:
. . . .
Charge No. III
He has failed to verify the genuineness of the construction of IHHL have been certified by any one of the field officers of Bargur Block or not.
Charge No. IV
That he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thus violated Rule 20(i) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rule, 1973.
Pursuant to the enquiry conducted, the order impugned has been passed by the first respondent, imposing on the petitioner, the punishment of withholding of increment without cumulative effect for a period of 6 months, apart from ordering recovery of Rs.31,680/-, payable in instalments, from his salary. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer proceeded on surmises and conjectures; he has held without any basis that the charges are proved; the first respondent, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, merely concurred with the Enquiry Officer''s report; when the petitioner was not found guilty of charge No. 1, as he had joined the Bargur Panchayat Union in the cadre of Assistant only on 21.03.2007 and the cheque having been issued much prior to that, the consequential charges also do not have legs to stand and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that though the petitioner was found not guilty of charge No. 1, inasmuch as he has not done his duty properly, the punishment has been imposed, after finding that the charges have been held proved and therefore, no interference is required.
This Court has considered the rival submissions.
On a perusal of the Enquiry Officer''s report, it is clear that Note order and the orders for the release of Rs.1,23,600/- towards the Government Grant for the construction of 103 IHHL was prepared on 16.03.2007. Therefore, it is clear as noonday that a cheque was issued much earlier to the petitioner joining his duty. That is the reason why he was not found guilty of Charge No. 1. The remaining charges are incidental to Charge No. 1.
Insofar as Charge No. 2, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation. He has stated in his explanation that he had verified the certification made by the Block Development Officer who was working at the relevant point of time, as to the genuineness of the construction and satisfied about the signature affixed to the cheque, note file, etc. and passed the bills. A specific plea has been taken that the duty of the petitioner is to verify as to whether the bills are prepared as per the procedure, which, he did accordingly. The Enquiry Officer rejected the said explanation of the petitioner.
This Court has perused the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to state that the petitioner has not verified the construction. When it was done already and approved in the Note file and when the petitioner has taken a specific plea that it was not his duty to verify again, without going into the same, the Enquiry Officer held that Charge No. 2 is proved.
Insofar as Charge No. 3, the petitioner has stated that he has verified the certification made by the Block Coordinator and the Block Development Officer with respect to construction. It is not, as if there were other materials available leading to an inference about non-construction. The Enquiry Officer, insofar as Charge No. 3, has made the following observation:
He has stated that the payment was made as the Block Development Officer signed the utilization certificates and he could do nothing except issuing the cheque. The execution of the Government Schemes is collective responsibility of the all the staffs engaged in the execution of works. All those are responsible for any irregularities found in the execution of works. All those are responsible for any irregularities found in the execution. No one can escape from the responsibility by putting finger on others. He is custodian of the cheque books, cash books and other relevant records.
The aforesaid observation is too general in nature. The very same observation, verbatim, has been used to hold that the petitioner is responsible for Charge No. 2 as well.
In a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, while holding that the charges are proved against the delinquent official, will have to come to a conclusion based upon sufficient materials. In the case on hand, the Enquiry Officer has put the entire onus on the petitioner and by way of making general observations, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved.
Charge No. 4 is incidental to Charge Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to integrity and devotion to duty. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Enquiry Officer has abdicated his duty in the performance of his role.
Coming to the order passed by the first respondent, the said authority has merely accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer. At this juncture, it is worth pointing out that the report of the Enquiry Officer is, after all, only a piece of evidence to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. There has to be an element of application of mind to the report of the Enquiry Officer, explanation given by the delinquent official and the materials available on record, for coming to the conclusion by the Disciplinary Authority, inasmuch as, such a decision entails civil consequences. Unfortunately, such a yardstick has been given a go by.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court sets aside the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the first respondent which is impugned in this writ petition.
As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.