Madras High Court · 2025

W.P.No. 7446 of 2022Writ Petition is filed for writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned punishment order passed by the 1st respondent on 09.02.2022, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to settle the terminal benefits and pension and DCRG amount due to the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court.Brief facts: 2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed as District Educational Officer in 2001, and after promotion as Inspector of Matriculation School at Chennai, he was promoted and posted as Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal. The petitioner was thereafter posted as Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur and later posted in Ramanathapuram, Kanniyakumari District. While so, the petitioner was transferred as Secretary, Parent Teachers Association, College Road, Chennai, vide order dated 02.06.2015, and in the place of petitioner, one Jayakumar was posted as Chief Educational Officer. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order dated 02.06.2015, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in W.P.No.8948 of 2015 and obtained an order of status-quo, therefore, the petitioner continued in the post of Chief Educational Officer, in Kanniyakumari District.2.2. Whileso, the respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner framing charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamilnadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, on 10.06.2015. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 18.08.2015. Thereafter, 2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022the petitioner submitted a letter to the Joint Director, who was appointed as enquiry officer, requesting him to furnish relevant documents. Subsequently, the enquiry officer's were changed thrice and finally the 4th respondent herein was appointed as enquiry officer, on 07.08.2018. The petitioner raised objections for appointment of the said enquiry officer. On 10.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a letter both to the enquiry officer as well as to disciplinary authority, namely Secretary to the School Education Department, raising objections to the procedure adopted in the enquiry proceedings. However, there was no response to the said letters. The enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted a report to the first respondent on 22.01.2019. The 1st respondent on 28.01.2019, communicated the report of the enquiry officer to the petitioner and called for his explanation. The petitioner was later issued with a reminder letter on 19.03.2019, to submit his explanation to the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.04.2019, to the 1st respondent. In the meantime, on 21.07.2019, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, with a rider that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would continue. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice on 27.11.2020, directing the petitioner to submit his representation within 15 days with regard to the proposed punishment of 25% cut in pension per month for a period of five years. 3. Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition 3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022before this Court in W.P.No. 19666 of 2020. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2020. Challenging the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No. 1087 of 2021. The Hon'ble Division Bench by its order dated 07.07.2021, disposed of the writ appeal directing the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice impugned therein. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation and further explanation to the 1st respondent on 15.07.2021and 31.07.2021 respectively. The 1st respondent, thereafter passed the impugned punishment order on 08.02.2022, imposing punishment of 25% cut in pension i.e Rs.25,000/- per month, for a period of five years. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.4. The respondent filed detailed counter denying all the contentions raised in the writ petition. According to the respondents, change of enquiry officers was necessitated because the 1st enquiry officer was equal in rank to the petitioner and the 2nd enquiry officer was transferred and posted as Director of School Education. Thereafter, one D.Vasunthradevi, Director of Government Examination was appointed as enquiry officer, on 23.09.2017. The petitioner by letter dated 06.07.2018 requested to change the enquiry officer, hence one Kannappan was appointed as enquiry officer vide order dated 13.07.2018. As the charges were 4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022initiated and framed against the petitioner during the tenure of said Kannappan, the petitioner again requested to change the inquiry officer by letter dated 18.07.2018. Hence Tmt. N. Latha, was appointed as enquiry officer vide order dated 07.08.2018. 5. It was stated that the said enquiry officer, Tmt. N.Latha conducted the enquiry in a transparent manner affording fair and sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to put forth his defense. On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted her report to the 1st respondent on 22.01.2019. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation to the enquiry report on 13.03.2019, by annexing a copy of the enquiry officer's report and the petitioner thereafter submitted his reply on 03.04.2019. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2020, calling for his explanation to the proposed punishment. After receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner preferred writ petition in W.P.No. 19666 of 2020, praying to quash the said show cause notice. The said writ petition was dismissed and thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ appeal which was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner in pursuance to the order of the Division Bench dated 07.03.2021, submitted his replies on 05.07.2021 and 13.07.2021 to the Government. 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 20226. The respondent further stated that after following due procedure, the petitioner was imposed with punishment of cut in pension of Rs.11,500/- for a period of five years vide impugned order, dated 08.02.2022. According to the respondent, as the charges against the petitioner were found proved by the enquiry officer on consideration of witnesses documents and other materials, there was no procedural infirmity in the enquiry proceedings. The respondent stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures and hence it did not call any interference by this Court. The respondents prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo itself was defective as list of documents and list of witnesses were not annexed to the charge memo. Learned counsel further submitted that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses named in the charge memo. Further the statement of witnesses particularly, M. Jayakumar, were not furnished to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that none of the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by the respondents. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned punishment order was based on a defective charge memo and hence the same was liable to be set aside.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order deserved 6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that as there were procedural lapses in conduct of the enquiry, the impugned punishment order deserved to be quashed.9. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the delay in concluding the proceedings was attributable to the petitioner, as the petitioner prolonged the proceedings under the pretext of non-furnishing of documents. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner was given ample and fair opportunities during the enquiry proceedings, and therefore, the impugned punishment order could not be faulted. 10. Upon careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides, and after examining the documents placed before me, I proceed to evaluate the merits of the case. 11. Objection No.1 – Defective charge memo and procedural lapses:11.1 According to the petitioner, the charge memo was defective inasmuch as Annexures 3 and 4, relating to the list of documents and the list of witnesses, were not attached to the charge memo. The petitioner contends that, even in the absence of the list of documents and witnesses, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to examine five witnesses behind the petitioner's back, depriving him of the opportunity to cross-7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022examine the witnesses. The petitioner contends that the statement of one of the witnesses, namely Jayakumar, was not furnished to him, and therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. 11.2 The charge memo issued to the petitioner contains four charges. The charges found in annexure 1 (Translated in english) are extracted below;“Charge No 1:On account of the alleged act of locking the Office of Chief Educational Officer on 05.06.2015 at 9AM and taking away the keys with him, Whereas Mr. V. Jeyakumar, the transferred Chief Educational Officer has joined duty and took charge on 04.06.2015A.N as per the G.O. (Valayam) No. 137 School Education (PaKal(1) Department dated 02.06.2015, he is charged as he failed from his duties and has created ill-name to the Government as well as to the department.Charge No. 2:Whereas Mr. V. Jeyakumar has taken the charges as the Chief Educational Officer as per the aforesaid Government Order, the relieved person Mr. A.S. Radhakrishnan has taken the official vehicle by threatening the office driver. Hence, he is charged as he has breached the rules and regulations by misusing his powers.Charge No 3:He has breached the Rule 20(1) of the Tamilnadu Government Servant Conduct Rules and acted independently by exceeding the official procedures through the act of taking away with him all the documents viz., Certificate of Transfer of Charges (CTC) which was signed by the new Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District after joining duty.Charge No. 4:As he fails to join duty in the transferred place as per the G.O. (Valayam) No. 137 School Education (PaKal(1) Department dated 02.06.2015 even after joining the new Chief Educational Officer in Kanyakumari District, he is charged as he has acted exceeding Government rules and not failed to oblige the aforesaid Government Order.”8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 202211.3 A perusal of the charge memo shows that two annexures were attached to it. The first annexure relates to the charges, and the second annexure pertains to the documents. The Annexure to the charge memo does not include a list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the respondent. Eventhough the list of witnesses was not attached to the chargememo, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to examine six witnesses. According to the petitioner, the witnesses were examined behind his back. The petitioner filed statement of witnesses in the additional typed set of papers. From the statement of witnesses, it is evident that the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them. Assuming that it was not necessary to list the names of the witnesses in the annexure to the charge memo, the petitioner even otherwise, ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the six witnesses examined by the respondents.11.4 In the enquriy report, the Enquiry Officer, with reference to the cross-examination of witnesses and the opportunity afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine them, stated as follows: “nkYk; Fw;wr;rhl;L (3)apid ghprPypf;Fk; bghUl;L nkny Fwpg;gpl;Ls;ss Mtz Mjhu';fspy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s mYtyf gzpahsh;f;s kw;Wk; mYtyth;fs; bkhj;j 6 nghplk; tprhuzi nkw;bfhs;ssg;gl;lJ/ midthpKk; tha;bkhHpahf 9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022nfl;l nfs;tpfSf;F vGj;J K:yk; gjpt[k; bgwg;gl;lJ (,izg;g[)jpU/ V/v!;/ ,uhjfpUc;&zd; mth;fsplk; 14/11/2018 md;W tha;bkhHp tpruhuiz elj;jg;gl;lJ/ tha;bkhHpahf j';fs; kPJ jkpH;ehL Foilg;gzp (xG';F elto;f;if kw;Wkk; nky;KiwaPL) tpjpf;s tpjp 17(gp),d; fPH; Rkj;jg;gl;l Fw;wrhl;Lfs; midj;jpw;Fk; vGj;Jg;g{h;tkhf 18/08/2015 njjpapy; jw;fhg;g[ tpsf;ffk; bfhLj;Js;sPh;fs;/ jw;nghJ Tljy; tpsf;fk; VnjDk; Tw tpUk;g[fpwPh;fsh/? vd nfl;fg;gl;lJ/ mjw;F jpU/ V/v!;/ ,uhjfpUc;&zd; mth;fs; 14/11/2018 md;iwa tpruhrizapy; fye;Jbfhz;lth;fsp;d rh;lrpa efy;fis fpilf;f bgw;w gpwnf tpsf;fk; bfhLf;fg;gLk; vd Twpdhh;/ nkYk; rhl;rpfsplk; Fwf;F tprhuiz bra;a tpUk;g[fpwPh;fsh vd;Wk; nfl;fg;gl;lJ/ 19/11/2018 md;W jpU bt/ b$af;Fkhh; vd;gthplk; jpU/ V/v!;/ ,uhjfpU zd; mth;f;s Kd;dpiyapy; tprhuiz elj;jg;gl;L thf;FK:yk; bgwg;gl;lJ/ Fwf;F tprhuiz bra;tjw;fhd tha;g;g[k; tH';fg;gl;lJ/ Mdhy; jpU/ V/v!;/ ,uhjfpUc;&zd; mth;f;s Fwf;F tprhuiz VJk; bra;a tpUk;gtpy;iy vdj; bjhptpj;jhh;/”11.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Karak Singh reported in [(2008) 8 SCC 236] laid down the principles with regard to conduct of enquiry proceedings. The court held as follows:10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022“ 15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him."11.6 Upon reading of the enquiry report it is evident that questions were posed to the witnesses during the enquiry and their statements were obtained. The enquiry officer recorded that one witness, Jayakumar, was examined in the presence of the petitioner, and although the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine him, he declined to do so. The enquiry report reveals that five witnesses, whose evidence was relied upon, were not examined in the presence of the petitioner. Only written questions and answers were obtained and so as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022examine the witnesses. 11.7 It is further pertinent to note that there was no presenting officer to present the respondent’s case or to produce evidence for proving the charges. The proceedings were conducted more like interrogations. In the absence of a presenting officer, the Enquiry Officer herself interrogated the witnesses and recorded statements. Disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, the enquiry proceedings should be conducted carefully and fairly. In the present case six witnesses were examined and out of them, five were examined behind the back of the petitioner, depriving him of the opportunity to cross-examine them. When the statements of the said five witnesses were relied on by the enquiry officer for returning a finding against the petitioner, in all fairness, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The failure to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the five witnesses, in my opinion, vitiates the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, the Enquiry Officer also acted as the presenting officer. In my view, this also impairs the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report itself shows that the enquiry was in the nature of an interrogation rather than proper enquiry proceedings.11.8 Furthermore, although the Enquiry Officer relied on two documents, the report does not state through whom the documents were marked. The enquiry report 12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022also does not indicate which witness proved the documents. Unless the documents are properly proved and the petitioner is given an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witnesses, the documents cannot be considered proved. In this context, it is useful to rely on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, reported in ([2009] 2 SCC 570), “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. "11.9 It is apparent that the charge memo was defective as the annexure listing the witnesses to be examined was not annexed. In the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer acted as the presenting officer. The enquiry officer herself put questions to the five witnesses and secured answers in the form of statements. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine them. From the enquiry 13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022report, it is not clear as to through whom the two documents relied on by the enquiry officer were marked. It is therefore clear that the enquiry officer herself acted as the prosecutor and judge. The above infirmities in the enquiry proceedings clearly establish that the enquiry was farcical and mere eyewash, bearing no genuine connection to unearthing the truth. I therefore find favour with the contention of the petitioner's counsel that as the impugned order is based on an illegal enquiry proceedings, the same deserves to be quashed.12. Objections 2 – Non speaking order12.1 From the documents filed in the typed set of papers, it is clear that the petitioner raised several objections to the enquiry report. The petitioner raised the issue of procedural lapses in the enquiry proceedings from the inception of the enquiry to the imposition of punishment. The said objections were raised even in the reply dated 15.07.2021, to the notice issued on the proposed punishment but were not considered. From the impugned punishment order, it is clear that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered by the first respondent. The first respondent was bound to consider the petitioner’s objections and give justifiable reasons for rejecting them. The impugned punishment order reflects complete non-application of mind to the explanations offerred by the petitioner to the findings of the enquiry officer. For example, the petitioner objected to the appointment of Tmt. N. Latha, as the enquiry officer, on the ground that she was earlier appointed as 14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022enquiry officer in a disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner, which resulted in the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. The said punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the Madurai Bench in W.P. Nos. 8714, 8928, and 8948 of 2015, and by order dated 31.07.2015, this Court set aside the punishment order. Despite the above order, the respondents, for reasons best known to them, appointed Tmt. N. Latha, as the enquiry officer, in the present proceedings also. In the light of the said facts, I am of the view that the said objection was fair and genuine and ought to have been considered by the respondent. I therefore find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned punishment order is a non-speaking order reflecting complete non-application of mind and hence vitiated.13. Objection No.3 – Delay13.1 It is seen that the charge memo was issued on 10.06.2015, and the final order of punishment was passed on 08.02.2022. It is clear that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly seven years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Although the respondents attributed the delay to the petitioner, in my view, the delay cannot be solely attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the change of enquiry officers. Admittedly, two enquiry officers were changed due to administrative constraints, and the third enquiry officer was replaced because the charge memo was initiated against the petitioner during his tenure. In the 15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022said process a delay of about three years occurred before the present enquiry officer, Tmt. N. Latha, was appointed on 07.08.2018. Further, the enquiry report was submitted to the first respondent on 22.01.2019, and objections to the report were called for on 30.01.2019, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.02.2019. Thereafter, a reminder was sent to the petitioner on 13.03.2019, and he submitted a further reply on 03.04.2019. Pursuant to the petitioner’s reply, a show cause notice seeking explanation on the proposed punishment was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2020. The said show cause notice was challenged before this court and this Court after a lapse of one year; disposed of the writ petition on 21.12.2020, and the writ appeal preferred against the order in the writ petition was disposed of on 07.07.2021. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed on 08.02.2022. 13.2 From a narration of the chronology of events, it is clear that the delay attributable to the petitioner is hardly one year. Therefore, the respondent’s contention that the petitioner was solely responsible for the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted. A major part of the delay of seven years is solely attributable to the respondents. Accordingly, even on the ground of delay, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. In this context, it is useful to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in [(2001) 6 SCC 636] held as follows;16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022“.....The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer”13.3 In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the charge memo on the ground of delay. In my view, the said judgment applies with full force to the facts of the present writ petition. In the present case, as already discussed, the charge memo itself is defective, there are procedural lapses in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, and even the impugned order of punishment is vitiated by complete non-application of mind. Hence, it would not be in the interest of the petitioner or the public to remit the matter for fresh consideration, especially since the petitioner has retired from service. Therefore, in my view, as the impugned punishment order dated 09.02.2022, is based on illegal enquiry proceedings, the same cannot be sustained and ergo, it is set aside.14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed 17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022to settle the terminal benefits and pension and DCRG amount due to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No orders as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.06.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking OrderakTo1. The Principal Secretary to GovernmentSchool Education Department,Secretariat, Chennai-600009.2.The Commissioner of School Education,DPI Campus, College Road,Chennai-600006.18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 7446 of 2022N. MALA, JakPre-Delivery Order in W.P.No. 7446 of 2022and WMP.Nos. 7448 &7449 of 2002Order delivered on 02.06.202519/19